Skip to main content

Full text of "A defence of the sincere and true translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue,against the cavils of Gregory Martin"

See other formats

W,  I 

fS  s 



^or  tt)e  l^ut)ltcatton  of  tfje  ^!Mov'k&  of  ti)e  dFatf)rr0 
and  asavlv  SlSHritct  0  of  tf)t  liefortneti 








^6e  Jlatfe^t  Sotiet|), 










It  is  a  circumstance  wliich  has  frequently  been  re- 
marked, that  those  authors  who  by  their  writings  have 
greatly  benefitted  mankind,  have  left  to  posterity  few 
particulars  from  which  may  be  gathered  the  events  of 
their  own  life.  The  course  of  a  scholar  rarely  exhibits 
any  incidents  or  features  of  variety.  Living  more  with 
past  generations  than  his  own,  holding  converse  with  his 
books  in  preference  to  the  world  without,  the  daily  tenor 
of  his  habits  and  occupations  continues  the  same.  We  must 
be  contented,  therefore,  to  dwell  with  him  in  his  seclusion, 
and  to  read  the  expression  of  his  recorded  thoughts,  rather 
than  expect  to  have  to  trace  his  history  in  events  of 
more  stirring  interest.  Such  is  the  case  with  respect  to 
the  subject  of  the  present  memoir.  The  few  particulars 
that  have  been  preserved  of  the  biography  of  William 
Fulke,  may  be  briefly  stated. 

Of  his  parentage  nothing  is  known.  Bishop  Wren', 
who  took  some  trouble  to  glean  notices  of  liis  life,  has 
not  even  left  us  the  date  of  liis  bu"th :  but  we  are  inci- 
dentally informed  by  himself  that  he  was  born  before  the 
year  1538.  (See  p.  41,  and  compare  the  statement  there 
with  the  notice  in  p.  ix.   of  No.  17  of  his  works.)     It  is 

[}  Bishop  Wren's  collections  have  been  used  for  a  similar  pur- 
pose by  Tanner.  (Historical  Account  of  the  Masters  of  Pembroke 
Hall.  Compiled  by  Matthew  Wren,  Bishop  of  Ely.  A  MS.  volume 
in  possession  of  the  College.  Leland's  Collectanea,  Vol.  v.  p.  390.) 
The  Manuscript  life  in  Caius  ('oUege  Library  seems  to  be  copied  from 
the  former.] 


reasonably  presumed,  that  he  was  born  in  London ;  and 
that  whilst  a  boy  at  school  he  manifested  indications  of 
that  talent  which  developed  itself  so  conspicuously  at  a 
later  age.  An  anecdote  has  been  preserved  wliich  shews 
that  even  at  an  early  period  he  was  possessed  with  the 
ambition  of  distinguishing  himself  above  his  associates.  It 
happened,  singularly  enough,  that  as  a  schoolfellow  he  came 
into  competition  with  Edmund  Campian  m  a  contest  for 
the  prize  of  a  silver  pen,  offered  by  one  of  the  masters  as 
a  reward  for  the  best  Uterary  exercise.  Our  aspiring  young 
scholar  being  unsuccessful  bore  liis  disappointment  with 
so  ill  a  grace  as  to  shed  tears  under  it,  indignantly 
looking  forward  to  the  reprisals  of  a  future  competition. 
From  Christ's  Hospital,  where  it  appears  likely  that  Fulke 
received  the  rudiments  of  his  education,  (as  it  is  certain 
that  Campian  was  educated  there  ^)  he  was  transferred  to 
St  John's  College,  Cambridge,  a.  d.  1555.  After  taking  liis 
degree  of  bachelor  of  arts,  his  father,  designing  him  for  the 
legal  profession,  entered  him  a  student  of  Chfford's  Inn. 
During  the  six  years  and  upwards  that  he  remained  here 
pursuing  legal  studies,  he  made  himself  weU  acquainted  with 
the  sciences,  and  gave  to  the  world  his  Ovpavoixa-^^ia,  a 
treatise  in  which  he  exposed  the  absurdities  of  astrology. 
At  length  returning  to  the  University,  he  proceeded  to  his 
Master's  degree,  being  at  the  same  time  elected  fellow  of 
his  college,  a.d.  1564. 

The  change  thus  indicated  in  his  plans  so  displeased 
his  father,  that  for  a  time  he  withdrew  from  him  the  neces- 
sary means  of  subsistence.  The  zeal  of  Fulke  suffered, 
however,  Httle  diminution  under  his  pecuniary  difficulties ; 
and  we  find  him  immediately  pursuing  his  new  course  of 
study  with  alacrity.      To  that  of  theology  he  now   joined 

[}  This  however  is  np  conclusive  evidence,  especially  as  Fulke  must 
have  been  at  least  fifteen  years  old  at  the  time  of  tlie  foundation  of  the 
Hospital  (1553).] 


the  acquisition  of  the  oriental  languages,  a  deep  knowledge 
of  which  was  by  no  means  common  at  the  time.  He  pro- 
ceeded to  the  degree  of  bachelor  of  divinity ;  and  dissen- 
sions immediately  afterwards  springing  up  in  liis  college, 
and  liimself  bemg  suspected  of  holding  puritanical  opinions 
in  consequence  of  his  close  intimacy  with  Cartwright,  he 
was  ejected  from  the  society.  Driven  from  his  college,  he 
commenced  a  course  of  lectures,  and  held  disputations  in 
a  house  which  was  afterwards  the  Falcon  Inn.  These  were 
attended  by  a  numerous  class  of  students. 

The  time  was  however  approaching,  when  his  fortunes 
were  to  witness  a  beneficial  change ;  for  the  Earl  of  Leices- 
ter, who  was  anxious  to  promote  men  of  merit,  irrespectively 
of  ti'ifling  differences  of  opinion,  had  singled  him  out  as 
eminently  deserving  preferment.  Through  his  means  he 
was  presented,  Aug.  10,  1571,  to  the  rectory  of  Warley 
in  Essex,  and  soon  afterwards,  March,  1573,  to  that  of 
Bennington  in  Suffolk.  On  the  earl  of  Lincoln  being  sent 
as  British  ambassador  to  Paris,  Fulke  was  appointed  one 
of  his  suite,  a  circumstance  which  enabled  him  to  obtain 
the  honorary  degree  of  doctor  of  divinity. 

The  same  influence  may  have  contributed  to  his  ad- 
vancement to  the  mastership  of  Pembroke  College  in  1578, 
on  the  promotion  of  Dr  Young  to  the  see  of  Rochester. 
He  had  in  this  elevated  station  ample  leisure  to  devote  his 
talents  to  polemical  theology ;  and  that  he  advantageously 
availed  himself  of  it,  is  sufficiently  evident  from  the  numerous 
works  he  has  left  to  posterity  in  vindication  of  the  reformed 
religion.  He  was  also  engaged  in  1580  and  following 
years  in  repeated  disputations  with  the  Papists,  sometimes 
in  the  Tower,  and  once  at  least  in  Wisbech  Castle.  (See 
No.  17,  in  the  subjoined  list  of  his  works.)  This  castle, 
originally  built  by  William  the  Conqueror,  was  afterwards  con- 
verted into  a  palace  of  the  bishops  of  Ely,  and  in  the  reign 
of  Elizabeth  was  used  as  a  prison  for  popish  conspirators. 


One  account  states  that  he  was  also  Margaret  Professor 
of  Divinity ;  but  this  fact  appears  to  be  at  least  very 
doubtful.  Having  filled  the  office  of  vice-chancellor,  and 
governed  his  college  for  eleven  years,  Fulke  died  in  Au- 
gust, 1589. 

The  voluminous  writings  he  left  behind  him  are  monu- 
ments of  that  industry  and  love  of  study,  which  (it  is 
supposed)  alone  prevented  his  higher  advancement  in  the 
church ;  and  they  furnish  satisfactory  evidence,  that  among 
contemporary  scholars  none  surpassed  him  in  erudition,  in  a 
grammatical  and  deep  acquaintance  with  the  learned  tongues, 
in  acutcness  and  closeness  of  reasoning:  none  devoted  more 
vigorous  and  untiring  energy  in  supporting  the  bulwarks 
of  the  Church  of  England. 

He  was  buried  in  the  chancel  of  his  church  at  Den- 
nington,  and  the  following  epitaph  was  placed  by  one  of 
his  admiring  successors  over  his  tomb. 

30.  November.  1621. 
In  Memoriam 
Reverendi  Gulielmi  Fulke,  Sacrae  Theologize  Doct.  Aulse 
Pemb.  in  Cantabrigia  Prsefect.  Hujus  Ecclesise  Dinning- 
toniensis  pastor,  ac  in  Testimonium  amoris  sui  perpetui  erga 
eum,  hoc  Monumentum  posiiit  Robertus  Wright,  Sacrae  quo- 
que  TheologisB  Professor,  et  nunc  cjusdem  Ecclesise  Pastor. 
Corpus  ilUus  Terra)  traditum  fuit  28  Die  August!  1589,  et 
in  hoc  saccUo  jacet  resurrectionem  expectans  per  adventura 

If  deepest  Learning,  with  a  zealous  Love 

To  Heaven  and  Truth,  could  Priveledges  prove 

To  keep  back  Death,  no  Hand  had  written  here 

Lies  Reverend  Fulke,  'till  Christ  in  Clouds  appear ; 

His  Works  will  shew,  him  free  from  all  Error, 

Rome's  Foe,  Truth's  Champion,  and  Rhemishes  Terror. 


Heureux  celui  qu'  apres  un  long  Travaill 
.    S  'est  assure  de  son  repos  au  Ciell. 

The  present  volume,  it  is  believed,  will  be  found  to  be 
an  accurate  reprint  (with  a  corrected  punctuation,  which 
was  much  needed)  of  the  original  edition  of  the  "Defence," 
1583.  But  in  one  or  two  places  a  correction  has  been 
introduced  from  the  folio  edition,  1633  :  ex.  gr.  p.  550, 
senseless  for  insenseless,  which,  though  not  perhaps  ab- 
solutely necessary,  it  appeared  desirable  and  safe  to  adopt 
on  such  authority.  In  several  instances  also,  in  which  the 
quotation  from  Martin  was  inaccurately  given  by  Fulke,  the 
mistake  has  been  corrected  by  reference  to  the  original* 

In  both  the  old  editions  there  was  subjoined  to  the 
present  work  (but  with  a  separate  paging),  '  A  briefs  con- 
futation of  all  such  quarrels  and  cauils,  as  have  bene  of  late 
vttered  by  diuerse  Papistes  in  their  Enghsh  Pamphlets, 
against  the  writings  of  the  saide  William  Fulke  ;'  as  the 
reader  will  see  in  the  copy  of  the  original  title-page  pre- 
fixed to  this  publication.  This  '  Confutation,'  however,  has 
no  connection  whatever  with  the  '  Defence  of  the  Transla- 
tions :'  it  is  therefore  not  here  re-printed  with  it,  but  is 
reserved  for  a  future  volume  of  Fulke,  where  it  will  come 
more  appropriately  in  company  with  the  works  which  it 
undertakes  to  defend. 

Besides  the  'Defence'  reprinted  in  the  present  volume, 
Fulke  was  the  author  of  the  following  works : 

1.  Antiprognosticon  contra  inutiles  astrologorum  pr^e- 
dictiones  Nostrodami,  Cunninghami,  Loui,  HilU,  Vaghami  et 
reliquorum  omnium.  Authore  Guilielmo  Fulcone.  Authori- 
tate  Londinensis  episcopi  juxta  formam  in  edictis  reginsB  pre- 
scriptam.      Sexto  die  Septembris,  1560.      Lond.  8vo. 


A  translation  of  this  work  was  published  in  the  yeai* 
1561,  (Tanner  says  1560),  with  the  following  title :  Anti- 
prognosticon,  that  is  to  saye,  an  Inucctive  agaynst  the  uaine 
and  vnprofitable  predictions  of  the  astrologians,  as  Nostro- 
dame,  &c.  Translated  out  of  Latin  into  Englishe.  Where- 
unto  is  added,  by  the  author,  a  short  treatise  in  Englishe, 
as  Avell  for  the  better  subuersion  of  that  fained  arte,  as 
also  for  the  better  vnderstanding  of  the  common  people, 
vnto  whom  the  fyrst  labour  seemeth  not  sufficient.  Lond. 
1561,  8vo. 

2.  A  goodly  gallery,  with  a  most  pleasaunt  prospect 
into  the  garden  of  naturall  contemplation,  to  beholde  the 
naturall  causes  of  all  kind  of  Meteors.  As  well  fyery  as 
ayery,  as  watry  and  earthly,  of  which  sorte  be  biasing 
starres,  shootingc  starres,  flames  in  the  ayre,  &c.;  thonder, 
lightninge,  earthquakes,  &c. ;  rayne,  dew,  snowe,  cloudes, 
springes,  &c. ;  stones,  metalles,  earthes.  To  the  glory  of 
God,  and  the  profitte  of  his  creatures.  Lond.  1571,  8vo. 
1634,  1640,  8vo.  From  the  colophon  of  the  edition  of 
1571,  it  appears  that  this  book  was  printed  in  1563,  but 
no  copy  has  been  found  with  that  date  on  the  title-page, 
and  the  edition  of  1640  is  styled  the  third.  Tanner  men- 
tions editions  in  1563  and  1580,  under  the  title  of  '  Me- 
teorologia,  AngHce.' 

3.  Ovpavona-^ia^  hoc  est,  Astrologorum  Indus  ad  bo- 
narum  artium  et  Astrologiae  in  primis  studiosorum  relax- 
ationem  comparatus,  nunc  primum  illustratus,  ac  in  lucem 
feditus  per  Guihelmum  Fulconem,  Cantabrigiensem.  Abacus 
et  calculi  vseneunt  apud  Guilielmum  Jones,  in  longa  officina, 
ad  occidentalem  Paulini  templi  portam.  Londini  per  Thomas 
Eastum  et  Henricum  Middeltonnum  impensis  Guilielmi  Jones. 
1571,  1572,  1573,  4to. 

4.  A  confutation  of  a  Popish  and  sclaunderous  libelle, 
in  form  of  an  Apologie :  geuen  out  into  the  courte,  and 
spread  abrode  in  diuerse  other  places  of  the  realme.    Written 

OF    WILLIAM    i'ULKE.  Vll 

by  William  Fulke,  Bachelor  in  Diuinitie,  and  felowe  of  S. 
Johns  CoUedge  in  Cambridge,  Imprinted  at  London  by 
John  Ivingston  for  Wilham  Jones,  and  are  to  be  soldo  at  the 
noAve  long  shop  at  the  west  ende  of  Ponies.  1571,  1573, 
1574,   12mo. 

5.  A  Sermon  preached  at  Hampton  Court  on  Sonday, 
being  the  12th  day  of  Nouember,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1570.  Wherein  is  plamly  proued  Babylon  to  be  Rome, 
both  by  Scriptures  and  Doctors.  Preached  by  WiUiam 
Fulke,  Bacheler  of  Diuinity,  and  Fellow  of  S.  Johns  Col- 
ledge  in  Cambridge.  ApocaUps.  14.  She  is  fallen,  she 
is  fallen,  euen  Babylon,  that  great  citie,  for  of  the  wyne  of 
the  fury  of  her  fornication,  she  hath  made  all  nationsv  to 
drinke.  Imprinted  at  London,  by  John  Awdely.  1572, 

There  was  a  subsequent  edition  with  the  same  title, 
except  that  FuUie  was  described  as  '  Doctor'  not  '  Bachelor', 
and  '  lately  Fellow',  &c.  Imprinted  at  London  by  John 
Charlewod,  1579,  12mo. 

6.  In  sacram  Divi  Johannis  Apocalypsim  praelectiones. 
Lend.  1573,  4to.  Translated  into  English  by  George 
Gyfford.     Lond.  1573,  4to. 

7.  A  Comfortable  Sermon  of  Fayth  in  temptations  and 
afflictions.  Preached  at  S.  Botulphes  wythout  Aldersgate 
in  London,  the  xv  of  February,  1573,  by  Maister  William 
Fulke,  Doctor  of  Divinity.  1  John  v.  4.  Imprinted  at 
London  by  John  Audeley.      1574,   1578,  1586,   12mo. 

8.  Two  treatises  written  against  the  papistes ;  the 
one  being  an  answer  of  the  Christian  protestant  to  the 
proud  challenge  of  a  popish  catholicke :  the  other,  a  confu- 
tation of  the  popish  churches  doctrine  touching  purgatory 
and  prayers  for  the  dead.  By  Wilham  Fulke,  Doctor  in 
Divinitie.     Lond.  Thomas  VautrolUer,  1577,  8vo.  pp.  464. 

9.  A  sermon  preached  on  Sunday c,  being  the  I7th  of 
March,  anno  1577,  at  S.  Alphage's  church  within  Creplegate 


in  London,  by  William  Fulke,  Doctor  in  Divinitie.  Seene 
and  allowed,  accordyng  to  the  order  appoynted  in  the 
queenes  maiesties  iniunctions.  Imprinted  at  London  for 
Lucas  Harryson,  1577,  12mo. 

This  sermon  was  translated  into  Latin,  by  John  Fox, 
and  appended  to  his  book,  entitled  De  Christo  gratis  ius- 
tificante,  Lond.  1583. 

10.  Mer/jo/Map^/a,  sive  Indus  geometricus.  Auctore 
Guiliemo    Fulcone    Anglo.       Lond.    Thomas    VautroUerius, 

1578,  4to. 

11.  GuiHelmi  Fulconis  Angli  ad  epistolam  Stanislai 
Hosii  Varmiensis  episcopi  de  expresso  Dei  verbo  Responsio. 
Lond.  1578,  12mo. 

12.  D.  Heskins,  D.  Sanders,  and  M.  Rastell  accounted 
(among  their  faction)  three  pillers  and  archpatriarches  of  the 
popish  synagogue,  (utter  enemies  to  the  truth  of  Christes 
Gospell  and  all  that  syncerely  profess  the  same)  ouerthrowne 
and  detected  of  their  seuerell  blasphemous  heresies.  By  D. 
Fulke,   Maister  of  Pembroke    Hall  in  Cambridge.      Lond. 

1579,  8vo.  pp.  803. 

This  work  consists  of  three  treatises  mentioned  by  Tan- 
ner separately,  as  '  Heskins  parHament  repealed,'  '  Confu- 
tation of  N.  Sanders  his  treatise  of  worshipping  images,'  and 
'  Refutation  of  John  Rastell's  confutation.' 

13.  Ad  ThomaB  Stapletoni,  Professoris  Regii  et  Ordina- 
rii  in  Academia  Duacena,  controversiarum  et  calumnias  in  sua 
principiorum  doctrinalium  demonstratione  methodica  contra 
satisfactione,  ad  Rishtoni  postulata  quaedam,  lib.  4.  cap.  10  et 
11  adliibitas,  Guihelmi  Fulconis,  Angli,  aulae  Pembrochianae  in 
Cantabrigiensi  academia  praefecti,  Responsio.  Londini,  im- 
pensis  Georgii  Bishop,  1579,  8vo. 

14.  A  Retentive  to  stay  good  Christians  in  true  faith 
an(Lreligion,  against  the  motives  of  Richard  Bristow.  Also, 
a  discoverie  of  the  daungerous  Rocke  of  the  Popish  Church, 
commended  by  Nicholas  Sander,  Doctor  of  Divinitie.      Done 


by  William  Fiilke,  Doctor  of  Divinitie,  and  Maister  of  Pem- 
broke Hall  in  Cambridge.  Lond.  Thomas  Vautrollier,  1580, 
8vo,  pp.  316. 

15.  T.  Stapleton  and  Martiall  (two  Popish  Heretikes) 
confuted,  and  of  theii'  particular  heresies  detected.  Bv 
D.  Fulke,  Master  of  Pembroke  Hall  in  Cambridge.  Done 
and  directed  to  all  those  that  love  the  truth,  and  hate 
superstitious  vanities.  Lond.  H.  Middleton,  Svo.  1580, 
pp.  217. 

16.  Stapletonii  fortalitium  expugnatum ;  cum  refutatione 
replicationis  J.  Martialis  ad  J.  Calfhillum  contra  librum  ejus 
de  cruce.     Lond.  1580,  12mo. 

17.  Conferentia  cum  pontificiis  in  castro  Wisbicensi. 
4.  Oct.  1580.     Lond.  1580.  Svo. 

18.  The  text  of  the  New  Testament  of  Jesus  Christ, 
translated  out  of  the  Vulgar  Latine  by  the  Papists  of  the 
traiterous  Seminarie  at  Rhemes.  With  arguments  of  Bookes, 
Chapters,  and  Annotations,  pretending  to  discouer  the  cor- 
ruptions of  diuers  translations,  and  to  clear  the  controuersies 
of  these  days.  Whereunto  is  added  the  translation  out  of 
the  original  Greeke,  commonly  used  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, with  a  confutation  of  all  such  Arguments,  Glosses, 
and  Annotations  as  contein  manifest  impietie  or  heresie, 
treason,  and  slander  against  the  Cathohke  Church  of  God, 
and  the  true  teachers  thereof,  or  the  translations  used  in 
the  Church  of  England.  Both  by  aucthoritie  of  the  holy 
vScriptures,  and  by  the  testimonie  of  ancient  fathers.  By 
William  FuUce,  D.D.  Lond.  1580,  1589,  1601,  1617, 
1633,  fol. 

19.  A  Sermon  on  2  Saml.  xxiv.  1.     Lond.  1580,  8vo. 

20.  A  Sermon  at  the  Tower  on  John  xvii.  17.  Lond. 
1580,  8vo.  1581,  16mo. 

21.  A  rejoynder  to  Bristow's  Replie  in  defence  of 
Aliens  scrolc  of  Articles  and  Bookc  of  Purgatoric.  Also 
the   cavils   of  Nicholas   Sander,    Doctor   in    Divinitie,    about 


the  Supper  of  our  Lord,  and  the  Apologie  of  the  Church 
of  England  touching  the  doctrine  thereof.  Confuted  by 
Wilham  Fulke,  Doctor  in  Divinitie,  and  Master  of  Pem- 
broke Hall  in  Cambridge.  At  London,  H.  Middleton, 
1581,  8vo.  pp.  792. 

22.  A  Brief  Confutation  of  a  Popish  Discourse,  lately 
set  forth,  and  presumptuously  dedicated  to  the  Queenes  most 
excellent  maiestie,  by  John  Howlet,  or  some  other  Birde  of 
the  night  under  that  name.  Contayning  certaine  reasons 
why  Papistes  refuse  to  come  to  Church,  which  are  here 
inserted  and  set  downe  at  large,  with  their  seuerall  answeres. 
By  D.  Fulke,  maister  of  Pembroke  Hall  in  Cambridge. 
Seeno  and  allowed.  At  London,  printed  for  George  Bishop, 
1581,   4to. 

23.  A  Brief  and  Plain  Declaration :  containing  the  de- 
sires of  all  those  faithful  Ministers  who  seek  Discipline  and 
Reformation  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  may  come  as 
a  just  Apology  against  the  false  Accusations  and  Slanders 
of  their  Adversaries.      1584. 

24.  De  Successione  Ecclesiastica  et  latente  ab  Anti- 
christi  tyrannide  ecclesia,  Liber  contra  Tliomse  Stapletoni 
principiorum  fidei  doctrinalium  librum  decimum  tertium ; 
auctore  Guihelmo  Fulcone  Anglo,  Aulae  Pembrochianro  in 
Cantabrigiensi  Academia  Prsefecto.  Lond.  Henricus  Midle- 
tonus,  impensis  Georgii  Bishop,  1584,   12mo.  pp.  474. 

25.  An  apologie  of  the  professors  of  the  Gospel  in 
Fraunce  against  the  railing  declamation  of  Peter  Frarine 
a  Louanian  turned  into  English  by  John  Fowler.  Written 
by  William  Fulke.  8vo.  pp.  54.  This  and  also  the  fol- 
lowing work,  No.  26,  were  published  separately,  and  also 
appended  to  the  '  Treatise  against  the  defence  of  the  censure 
given  upon  the  books  of  W.  Clarke  and  Meredith  Hanmer, 
by  an  unknown  popish  traytor,  in  defence  of  the  seditious 
challenge  of  Edmond  Caippion.'      Camb.  1586,  8vo. 

26.  A  Confutation  of  a  treatise  made  by  Wilham  Allen 


in  defence  of  the  usurped  power  of  Popish  Priesthood  to 
remit  emnes,  of  the  necessity  of  Shrift,  and  of  the  Popes 
pardons.  By  William  Fullce.  Imprinted  by  Thomas  Thomas, 
Cambridge,  [1586],  pp.  531,  8vo.  Tanner  mentions  an 
edition.  Lend.   1586,   8vo. 

Amongst  the  Harleian  Manuscripts  are  the  following  : 
No.  422.  fol.   148. 

A  Disputation  or  Conference  had  within  the  Towre  of 
London,  on  Monday,  being  the  18th  of  September,  A.  D. 
1581.  Wherein  were  assembled  the  Lorde  of  Glanrikerd,  Sir 
Owen  Hopton,  Su*  WilUam  George,  Sir  Thomas  Hinnage, 
Sir  Nicholas  Poynes,  besides  others  :  Doctour  Foulkes  'and 
Doctour  Goade,  Disputants,  being  sitting  at  a  table,  having 
there  certaine  bookes  about  them.  Mr  Clarke  and  Mr  Field 
being  as  Notaries  at  the  said  table,  and  for  the  said  Con- 
ference appointed  ;  before  whom  and  right  opposite  upon  a 
stoole  was  sett  Mr  Campion,  Jesuite,  having  only  his  Bible. 

Ibid.  fol.  168. 

A  third  Disputation  between  the  said  Doctors  Fulke  and 
Goade  opponents,  and  Campion  the  Jesuite  respondent. 

A  report  of  these  conferences,  but  differing  considerably 
from  that  contained  in  these  MSS.,  was  published  with  the 
following  title,  '  The  three  last  dayes  conferences  had  in  the 
Tower  with  Edmund  Campion,  Jesuite,  the  18.  23.  and 
27.  of  September,  1581.  Collected  and  faithfully  set  down 
by  M.  John  Fielde,  student  in  Diuinitie.  Nowe  perused 
by  the  learned  men  themselues,  and  thought  meete  to  be 
published.'  Januarij  1,  1583.  London,  4to.  This  volume 
is  often  found  appended  to  the  report  of  the  first  day's  con- 
ference to  which  Fulke  was  not  a  party. 

Xll  NOTICE    OP 

To  the  foregoing  account  of  Fulke  it  may  be  interesting  to 
the  reader  to  have  subjoined  a  brief  notice  of  his 
opponent,  Gregory  Martin. 

Gregory  Martin  was  born  at  Maxfield  near  Winchelsea, 
but  in  what  precise  year  we  are  unable  to  state.  The 
earliest  date  connected  with  his  life  informs  us,  that  in  1557 
he  was  nominated  one  of  the  original  scholars  of  St  John's 
college,  Oxford,  by  the  founder  Sir  Thomas  White.  He 
went  through  the  usual  course  of  logic  and  philosophy  with 
great  diligence,  and  took  his  Master  of  arts'  degree  in  1564. 
Shortly  afterwards  he  was  engaged  by  Thomas  duke  of 
Norfolk  to  be  tutor  to  his  cliildren,  amongst  whom  he  had 
the  honour  of  instructing  Philip,  the  celebrated  earl  of  Arundel. 
That  Martin  was  a  person  of  considerable  reputation  may 
be  gathered  from  the  circumstance,  that  when  his  patron 
visited  Oxford,  one  of  the  feUows  of  St  John's  dehvered 
before  him  a  speech,  in  wliich  Martin  was  highly  compli- 
mented as  a  Hebrew  and  Greek  scholar,  and  commemorated 
as  a  distinguished  ornament  of  theu*  society. 

Having  terminated  his  engagement  in  the  duke  of 
Norfolk's  family  he  went  abroad,  and  openly  renounced 
the  Protestant  rehgion,  having  been  previously  a  favourer 
of  the  doctrmes  of  the  Romish  church  only  in  secret.  He 
now  settled  himself  at  Douay,  applied  liimself  to  the  study 
of  theology,  was  ordained  priest  in  1573,  and  licentiate  in 
divinity  in  1575.  He  subsequently  travelled ;  visited  Rome, 
and  the  other  places  in  Italy  which  a  person  of  his  views 
would  most  naturally  desire  to  see,  and  at  length  per- 
manently fixed  himself  at  Rheims,  where  he  became  public 
professor  and  one  of  the  readers  of  divinity  in  the  EngHsh 
semmary.  He  died  there  Oct.  28,  1582,  and  was  buried 
in  St  Stephen's  church.   , 

Martin  was  considered   a  person   of  great  learning,  an 


excellent  linguist,  and  superior  to  most  scholars  of  his  time. 
Besides  the  work  reprinted  in  the  present  volume,  he  was 
one  of  the  principal  persons  concerned  in  that  translation  of 
the  New  Testament,  which  is  quoted  and  generally  known 
under  the  title  of  the  Rhemish.  The  first  edition  was 
printed  at  Rheims  in  4to  in  1582 :  a  second  edition  by 
Daniel  VerveUet  at  Antwerp,  4to,  1600  :  a  third  in  1630, 
and  a  fourth  at  Paris  in  1633.  It  was  reprinted  in  London, 
with  "the  Bishops'"  translation  in  a  parallel  column:  and 
'  A  Confutation  of  all  such  arguments,  glosses,  and  annota- 
tions as  contain  manifest  impiety,  or  heresy,  treason  and 
slander  against  the  catholick  Church  of  God,  and  the  true 
teachers  thereof,  or  the  translations  used  in  the  Church,  of 
England ;  by  Dr  WilUam  Fulke.'  The  marginal  notes  of 
the  Rhemish  Testament  were  answered  in  1588,  in  "  A 
View  of  the  marginal  notes  of  the  Popish  Testament,  trans- 
lated into  English  by  the  Enghsh  fugitive  papists  resident 
at  Rheims,  in  France,  by  George  Withers."  The  Rhemish 
translation  was  also  reprinted  in  1618  'by  some  friends 
to  the  memory  of  the  learned  Thomas  Cartwright,'  with  a 
Confutation  \ 

The  following  are  the  titles  of  other  works  attributed 
to  Gregory  Martin  by  Antony  Wood,  Tanner,  and  Dod : 

A  Treatise  of  Schisme ;  shewing  that  al  Catholikes 
ought  in  any  wise  to  abstaine  altogether  from  heretical  con- 
venticles, to  witt,  their  Prayers,  Sermons,  &c.  1578,  b.  1. 
1587,  Doway-, 

A  Treatyse  of  Christian  Peregrinatione ;  written  by 
M.  Gregory  Martin,  Licentiate,  and  late  Reader  of  Divinitie, 

['  Towneley's  lUustr.  of  Biblical  Literature,  Vol.  iii,  pp.  74,  75, 
Lewis's  Hist,  of  Engl,  Transl,  of  the  Bible,  pp.  294,  295,] 

[^  For  reprinting  this  book  Carter  the  printer  was  condemned  of 
treason  and  executed,  it  being  thought  to  contain  a  recommendation  to 
assasinate  the  queen.  See  Concert.  Ecclesiae  Cathol.  pp.  127,  129,  130. 
Strype's  Annals,  xi.  587,  iii.  281,  ch,  23.  Fuller's  Church  Hist,  xvi, 


at  Kernes :  Whereunto  is  adioyned  certen  Epistles  written 
by  him  to  Sundrye  his  frendes ;  the  copies  whereof  were 
since  his  decease  foimde  amonge  his  writtings.  Nowe  espe- 
cially pubhshed  for  the  benefite  of  those  that  either  erre 
in  religione  of  simplicitie,  or  folow  the  worlde  of  frailty. 
Lond.   1583.  16mo. 

Against  the  Marriage  of  Priests.      1584. 

Of  the  love  of  the  Soul,  with  questions  to  the  Protes- 
tants.     Printed  at  Rouen  and  St  Omer's.      12mo.    1603. 

Roma  Sancta. 

Dictionarium  quatuor  linguarum,  Hebraicse,  Graecpe,  La- 
tinaB,  et  Anglicse,  et  vocabulorum  ac  phrasium  secundum 
cuj  usque  linguae  proprietatem. 

Compendium  historiarum,  hb.  i. 

Orationes  de  jejunio,  de  imaginum  usu  et  cultu.  MS,  in 
the  library  of  John  Pits. 

Pro  veteri  et  vera  Graecarum  literarum  pronuntia- 
tione,  adversus  Adolphum  Mekerchium  Brugensem.  Edit. 
Havercamp.  Ludg.  Bat.   1740. 

Diversorum  carminum  partim  Graece  partim  Latine, 
lib.  I. 

Besides  these  lie  left  behind  several  translations. 

The  Editor  of  the  present  volume  has  the  pleasure  of 
expressing  his  grateful  acknowledgements  to  the  Right  Hon. 
the  Earl  Spencer,  for  the  permission  allowed  him  to  con- 
sult the  valuable  collection   of  Bibles  at  Althorpe 




OP    THE 





ta    defense 

of  the  sincere  and  true  Tran- 
slations of  the  holie   Scriptures   into 

the  English  tong,  against  the  manifolde  cauils, 
friuolous  quarels,and  impudent  slaunders  of  Gre- 
GORiE  Martin,  one  of  the  readers  of  Po- 
pish diuinitie  in  the  trayterous  Serai- 
narie  of  Rhemes. 

By  William   Fvlke   D.   in   Diuinitie, 
and  M.  of  Pembroke  haule  in  Cambridge. 

Wherevnto  is  added  a  briefe  confutation  of  alt  such 

quarrels  &  cauils,  as  have  bene  of  late  vttered  by  diuerse 

Papistes  in  their  English  Pamphlets,  against  the 

writings  of  the  saide  William  Fvlke. 


Imprinted  by  Henrie  Bynneman, 
for  George  Bishop. 

Anno.  1583. 

Cum  gratia  4*  Priuilegio. 





Heretikes  of  our  daies,  specially  the 
English  Sectaries,  and  of  their  foule 
dealing  herein,  by  partial  &  false  trans- 
lations to  the  aduantage  of  their  here- 
sies, in  their  EngUsh  Bibles  vsed  and 
authorised  since  the  time  of  Schisme. 

By  Gregory  Martin  one  of  the  readers 
of  Diuinitie  in  the  English  College 
OP  Rhemes. 

2  Cor.  2. 

Non  sumus  sicut  plurimi,  adulterantes  verhiin  Dei,  sed 
ex  sinceritate,  sed  sicut  ex  Deo,  coram  Deo,  in  Christo 

That  is, 

We  are  not  as  very  many,  adulterating  the  word 
of  God,  but  of  sinceritie,  &  as  of  God,  before 
God,  in  Christ  we  speake. 

Printed  at  RHEMES, 
By  John  Fogny, 






Among  the  inestimable  benefits,  wherewith  Almighty  God 
hath  wonderfully  blessed  this  yoiu'  majesty's  most  honourable 
and  prosperous  government,  it  is  not  to  be  numbered  among 
the  least,  that  under  your  most  gracious  and  christian  pro- 
tection the  people  of  your  highness'  dominions  have  enjoyed 
the  most  necessary  and  comfortable  reading  of  the  holy  scrip- 
tures in  their  mother  tongue  and  native  language.  Which 
exercise,  although  it  hath  of  long  time,  by  the  adversaries  of 
him  that  willeth  the  scriptures  to  be  searched,  (especially 
those  of  our  nation,)  been  accounted  httle  better  than  an 
D  H'skin'''2  heretical  practice ;  and  treatises  have  been  written,  pretending 
to  shew  great  inconvenience  of  having  the  holy  scriptures  in 
the  vulgar  tongue ;  yet  now  at  length  perceiving  they  cannot 
prevail  to  bring  in  that  darkness  and  ignorance  of  God's  most 
sacred  word  and  will  therein  contained,  whereby  their  blind 

[_^  John  Standisli  here  alluded  to  was  admitted  a  probationer  feUow 
of  Corpus  Christi,  Oxford,  in  1528.  In  the  time  of  Edward  VI.  he  was 
a  zealous  reformer,  made  rector  of  Wigan,  and  married ;  but  was  sepa- 
rated from  his  wife  when  queen  Mary  ascended  the  throne,  and  deprived 
of  his  preferment.  Bp.  Bonner  for  his  affections  to  popery  gave  him 
the  rectory  of  Packlesham.  Among  other  works  he  wrote  "  A  Treatise 
against  the  Translation  of  the  Bible  into  the  vulgar  language ;  printed  by 
Caley  in  1554,"  of  which  there  was  a  second  edition  by  the  same  printer 
the  following  year.    Wood's  Athense.  Vol.  i.  p.  236 — 8.] 

P  Thomas  Heskins,  or  Heskyns,  was  collated  by  Cardinal  Pole  to 
the  chancellorship  of  Salisbury,  1558,  but  ejected  on  the  accession  of 
Elizabeth  the  following  year.  (Le  Neve's  Fasti,  p.  269.  Wood's  Fasti, 
p.  113.)  Heskins  wrote  "  the  Parliament  of  Christ,  concerning  the 
Sacrament,  impugned  in  a  sermon  by  John  Jewell.  Ant.  1566.  fol." 
It  was  answered  by  Fulke  in  his  book  entitled  Heskins'  Parliament 
repealed  by  W.  F.    Lond.  1579.] 


devotion,  the  daughter  of  ignorance,  as  they  themselves  pro- 
fess, was  -wont  to  make  them  rulers  of  the  world,  they  also 
at  the  last  are  become  translators  of  the  New  Testament  mto 
Enghsh.  In  which,  that  I  speak  notliing  of  their  insincere 
purpose,  in  leaving  the  pm^e  fountain  of  the  original  verity, 
to  follow  the  crooked  stream  of  their  barbarous  vulgar  Latin 
translation,  which  (beside  all  other  manifest  corruptions)  is 
found  defective  in  more  than  an  hundred  places,  as  your  ma- 
jesty, according  to  the  excellent  knowledge  in  both  the  tongues 
wherewith  God  hath  blessed  you,  is  very  well  able  to  judge ; 
and  to  omit  even  the  same  book  of  their  translation,  pestered 
with  so  many  annotations,  both  false  and  imdutiful,  by  which, 
under  colour  of  the  authority  of  holy  scriptures,  they  seek  to* 
infect  the  minds  of  the  credulous  readers  with  heretical  and 
superstitious  opinions,  and  to  alienate  their  hearts  from  yielding 
due  obedience  to  your  majesty  and  your  most  christian  laws 
concerning  true  rehgion  established;  and  that  I  may  pass 
over  the  very  text  of  then*  translation,  obscured  without  any 
necessary  or  just  cause  with  such  a  multitude  of  so  strange 
and  unusual  terms,  as  to  the  ignorant  are  no  less  difficult  to 
understand,  than  the  Latin  or  Greek  itself:  yet  is  it  not  meet 
to  be  concealed,  that  they  wliich  neither  truly  nor  precisely 
have  translated  their  own  vulgar  Latin  and  only  authentical 
text,  have  nevertheless  been  bold  to  set  forth  a  several  trea- 
tise, in  which  most  slanderously  and  unjustly  they  accuse  all 
om'  EngUsh  translations  of  the  bible,  not  of  small  imperfections 
and  oversights  committed  tlu-ough  ignorance  or  negligence,  but 
of  no  less  than  most  foul  dealing  in  partial  and  false  transla- 
tions, wilful  and  heretical  corruptions. 

Against  which  most  lewd  and  untrue  accusation,  though 
easy  to  be  judged  of  by  such  as  be  learned  in  the  tongues, 
yet  dangerous  to  disquiet  the  conscience  of  them  that  be 
ignorant  in  the  same,  I  have  written  a  short  and  necessary 
defence ;  which,  although  not  laboured  in  words,  yet  in 
matter  I  hope  sufficient  to  avoid  all  the  adversaries'  cavils. 


I  am  most  humbly  to  crave  pardon,  that  I  may  be  bold  to 
dedicate  rnito  yom*  most  excellent  majesty ;  tliat  under  whose 
high  and  christian  authority  yom'  people  have  so  many  years 
enjoyed  the  reading  of  the  holy  books  of  God  in  their  native 
language,  to  the  everlasting  benefit  of  many  thousand  souls, 
under  the  same  your  most  gracious  and  royal  protection  they 
may  read  also  the  defence  of  the  sincere  and  faithful  trans- 
lation of  those  books,  to  the  quieting  of  their  consciences,  and 
the  confusion  of  the  adversaries  of  God's  truth  and  holy  re- 
ligion. By  which  they  may  be  stirred  up  more  and  more  in 
all  dutiful  obedience,  not  only  to  be  thankful  unto  yom*  ma- 
jesty, as  it  becometh  them,  but  also  to  continue  their  most 
earnest  and  hearty  prayers  to  Almighty  God  for  this  your 
most  godly  and  happy  regiment  over  them  for  many  years 
forward  to  be  prolonged. 

The  God  of  glory,  which  hitherto  hath  advanced  your 

majesty's  throne,  above  all  princes  of  tliis  age,  in  true  honour 

and  glory,  vouchsafe  to  preserve  the  same  with  his  daily 

blessing,  to  the  protection  of  that  glorious  reparation 

of  his  church,  which   you  have  most  happUy 

taken  in  hand,  to  the  everlasting  praise 

of   his   mercy,   and  the   endless 

fehcity     of    your 

majesty ! 

Your  majesty's  most  humble  subject, 
and  most  bounden  daily  orator, 


THE     PREFACE,  Martin. 



Martin.    As  it  hath  been  always  the  fashion  of  heretics  to  pretend  Heretics 
scriptures  for  shew  of  their  cause ;   so  hath  it  been  also  their  custom  speciafiy^ 
and  propei-ty  to  abuse  the  said  scriptures  many  ways  in  favour  of  their-g^rip^fj^g^s. 

Fulke.  Whether  these  five  abuses  have  been  common  to  Fulkb. 
all  heretics,  and  whether  it  hath  been  the  fashion  of  all  here- 
tics to  pretend  scriptm^es  for  shew  of  then*  cause,  though  I 
will  spare  now  to  inquire  of,  as  a  thing  wherein  learned  men 
at  the  first  sight  may  espy  the  great  skill  that  Martin  pre- 
tendeth  to  have  in  discerning  of  heretics  and  heresies ;  yet 
will  I  shew  (by  the  grace  of  God)  that  none  of  these  five 
abuses  are  committed  by  us  or  our  catholic  translations,  and 
that  the  popish  heretics  are,  in  some  sort  or  other,  guilty  of 
them  all. 

Martin.    One  way  is,  to  deny  whole  books  thereof,  or  parts  of  Martin,  1. 
books,  when  they  are  evidently  against  them.     So  did  (for  example)  Jertetn^books 
Ebion  all  St  Paul's  epistles,  Manicheus  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Alo-  '^^l^^  °^ 
giani  St  John's  gospel,  Marcion  many  pieces  of  St  Luke's  gospel,  and 
so  did  both  these  and  other  heretics  in_pther  books,  denying  and  allowing 
what  they  list,  as  is  evident  by  St  Irenaeus,  St  Epiphanius,  St  Augus- 
tine, and  all  antiquity. 

Fulke.  First,  we  deny  no  one  book  of  the  canonical  Fulke,  1. 
scripture,  that  hath  been  so  received  of  the  cathohc  chm-ch, 
for  the  space  of  300  years  and  more,  as  it  hath  been  often 
proved  out  of  Eusebius,  St  Jerome,  and  other  ancient  au- 
thorities :  but  the  papists,  in  advancing  apocryphal  books  to 
be  of  equal  credit  with  the  canonical  scriptures,  do  in  effect 
deny  them  all.  Besides  that,  to  add  unto  the  word  of  God 
is  as  great  a  fault  as  to  take  away  from  it,  the  one  being 


forbidden  under  as  heavy  a  curse  as  the  other.  Those  blas- 
phemies of  Pighius'  and  Eccius",  the  one  calling  the  holy 
scripture  a  nose  of  wax  and  a  dumb  judge,  the  other 
terming  the  gospel  written  to  be  a  black  gospel  and  an 
inlvy  divinity ;  and  that  of  Hosius^,  acknowledging  none  other 
express  word  of  God,  but  only  this  one  word  ama,  or  dilige, 
"  love  thou ;"  what  other  thing  do  they  import,  but  a  shame- 
less denial  of  all  books  of  the  holy  scripture  in  deed,  howso- 
ever in  word  they  will  seem  to  admit  them  ? 

Martin,  2.       Martin.    Another  way  is,  to  call  into  question  at  the  least,  and 
of  their ''""^  make  some  doubt  of  the  authority  of  certain  books  of  holy  scriptures, 
and'caiimg     thereby  to  diminish  their  credit.    So  did  Manicheus  affimi  of  the  whole 
'ueSion'"      -^^^  Testament,  that  it  was  not  written  by  the  apostles;  and  peculi- 
arly of  St  Matthew's  gospel,  that  it  was  some  other  man's  under  his 
name,  and  therefore  not  of  such  credit,  but  that  it  might  in  some  part  be 
refused.    So  did  Marcion,  and  the  Ai-ians,  deny  the  epistle  to  the  He- 
brews to  be  St  Paul's,  Epiph.  lib.  2.  haer.  69,  Euseb.  lib.  4.  hist.  c.  27 ; 
and  Alogiani  the  Apocalypse  to  be  St  John's  the  Evangelist,  Epiph.  et 
August,  in  hser.  Alogianorum. 

FuLKE,  2.  Fulke.  We  neither  doubt  of  the  authority  of  any  certain 
book  of  the  holy  scriptures,  neither  call  we  any  of  them  into 
question ;  but  with  due  reverence  do  acknowledge  them  all 
and  every  one  to  be  of  equal  credit  and  authority,  as  being 

P  Sunt  enim  illae  (scripturte),  ut  non  minus  vere  quam  festive  dixit 
quidam,  velut  nasus  cereus,  qui  se  horsum,  illorsum,  et  in  quam  volueris 
partem,  trahi,  retrahi,  fingique  facile  permittit.  Pighius,  Hierarch. 
Eccles,  Assertio,  Lib.  iii.  cap.  3.  fol.  80,  edit.  1638.  Albert  Pighius,  a 
mathematician  and  controversialist,  bom  at  Kempen  in  Westphalia 
about  1490,  and  died  1542.] 

P  Scriptores  canonici  semper  prius  habuerunt  evangeUum  mentale, 
quam  ederent  illud  nigrum  in  literis.  Eck.  Apologia  pro  Principibus 
Catholicis.  Fol.  74  b.  Antverp.  1542.  Tu  nos  ad  mortuas  pelles,  ad 
atramentum  remittis,  et  literam.  Ibid.  fol.  156  b.  Echius,  or  Eckius, 
was  professor  and  chancellor  of  the  University  of  Ingolstad,  and  a  cele- 
brated controversialist  of  the  16th  century.  His  chief  work  was  a 
"Manual  of  Controversy,"  which  went  through  many  editions.  He 
was  born  in  Suabia  in  1486,  and  died  at  Ingolstad  in  1543.] 

Q^  Vis  autem  quod  sit  verbum  salvificans  cognoscere  ?  Breve  verbum 
est  et  expedituni,  Ama.  Caritas  est  verbum  salvificans,  etc.  Hosii  Opera, 
De  Expresso  Dei  Verbo.  Tom.  i.  p.  628.  Stanislas  Hosius  was  one  of 
the  most  illustrious  cardinals  of  the  16th  century,  born  at  Cracow  in 
1504.  He  opened  the  CouncU  of  Trent  as  legate  from  Pius  the  Fourth, 
and  was  subsequently  appointed  grand  penitentiary  by  Grcgoiy  the  Thir- 
teenth,    He  died  in  1579.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  if 

all  inspired  of  God,  given  to  the  church  for  the  building  up 
thereof  in  truth,  and  for  the  avoiding  of  fables  and  heresies. 
But  the  papists,  arrogating  to  their  pope  authority  to  allow 
or  refuse  any  book  of  holy  scripture,  and  affirming  that 
no  scripture  hath  authority  but  as  it  is  approved  by  their 
church,  do  bring  aU  books  of  the  holy  scripture  into  doubting 
and  uncertainty  with  such  as  will  depend  upon  their  pope 
and  popish  church's  authority,  which  they  affirm  to  be  above 
the  holy  scriptures,  saying  they  might  as  weU  receive  the 
gospel  of  Nicodemus  as  of  St  Mark,  and  by  the  same  au- 
thority reject  the  gospel  of  St  Matthew,  as  they  have  done 
the  gospel  of  St  Bartholomew.  These  blasphemous  assertions 
although  some  of  them  would  colom'  or  mitigate  with  gentle 
interpretations,  yet  there  is  no  reasonable  man  but  seeth 
into  what  discredit  and  imcertainty  they  must  needs  bring 
the  authority  of  the  canonical  books  of  holy  scripture  with 
the  simple  and  ignorant. 

Martin.    Another  way  is,  to  expound  the  scriptures  after  their  own  Ma  rtin,  3. 
private  conceit  and  fantasy,  not  according  to  the  approved  sense  of  the  expositiom'^^ 
holy  ancient  fathers  and  cathoUc  church.     So  did  Theodorus  Mopsues-  evCTy'^onl's" 
tites  (Act.  Synod  5.)  affirm  of  all  the  books  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  ^g"gj°'' 
Psalms,  that  they  spake  not  evidently  of  Christ ;  but  that  the  ancient 
fathers  did  voluntarily  draw  those  sayings  unto  Christ,  which  were 
spoken  of  other  matters.    So  did  aU  heretics,  that  would  seem  to  ground 
their  heresies  upon  scriptiu'es,  and  to  avouch  them  by  scriptxires  ex- 
pounded according  to  their  own  sense  and  imagination. 

Fulke.  We  expound  not  the  scriptures  after  our  own  Fulke,  3. 
private  conceit  and  fantasy ;  but,  as  near  as  God  giveth  us 
grace,  according  to  the  plain  and  natural  sense  of  the  same, 
agreeable  unto  the  rule  or  proportion  of  faith,  which  being 
approved  by  the  ancient  fathers^  and  catholic  church  of  Clu-ist, 
in  all  matters  necessary  to  eternal  salvation :  not  bringing 
a  new  and  strange  sense,  which  is  without  the  scriptures,  to 
seek  confirmation  thereof  in  the  scriptures  (as  the  manner 
of  heretics  is  rightly  noted  by  Clemens*);  but  out  of  the  scrip- 
tures themselves  seek  we  the  exposition  of  such  obscure 
places  as  we  find  in  them,  being  persuaded  with  St  Augus- 

L  Ot  fie  iqBovals  <T(pas  avrovs  eKBeBcoKOT^s  jBia^ovrai  npos  tcis  fnt- 
6vfiias  Trjv  ypa<^r)v.  Clem.  Alexandr.  Stromatum  vii.  p.  890.  Ed.  Potter. 
Venet.  1767.] 

10  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

tine^  that  nothing  in  a  manner  is  found  out  of  those  obscure  and 
dark  places,  which  may  not  be  found  to  be  most  plainly  spoken 
in  other  places.  And  as  for  the  approved  sense  of  the  holy 
ancient  fathers,  and  catholic  church  of  the  eldest  and  pm^est 
times,  if  the  papists  durst  stand  unto  it  for  the  deciding  of 
many  of  the  most  weighty  controversies  that  are  between  us, 
there  is  no  doubt  but  they  should  soon  and  easily  be  de- 
termined, as  hath  been  shewed  in  divers  and  many  treatises, 
written  against  them.  In  which  if  any  thing  be  brought  so 
plainly  expoimding  the  scripture  against  their  popish  heresies, 
as  nothing  can  be  more  express  nor  clear,  then  they  are  driven 
to  seek  new  and  monstrous  expositions  of  those  fathers'  inter- 
pretations ;  or  else  they  answer,  "  They  are  but  those  fathers' 
private  expositions ;"  appealing  to  the  catholic  chm'ch's  in- 
terpretation, which  is  nothing  else  but  their  own  private  conceit 
and  fancy,  having  no  record  to  prove  that  catholic  church's 
interpretation  but  the  present  heretical  opinions  of  this  late 
degenerated  antichristian  congregation.  And  when  they  have 
discoursed  never  so  much  of  the  cathohc  church's  interpre- 
tation, they  reduce  and  submit  all  men's  judgments  to  the 
determination  of  their  councils,  and  the  decrees  of  the  councils 
to  the  approbation  of  their  pope ;  wliich,  as  he  is  oftentimes 
a  wicked  man  of  life,  so  is  he  ignorant  and  unlearned  in  the 
scriptures ;  to  whose  most  private  censure  the  holy  scriptm-es 
themselves,  and  all  sense  and  exposition  of  them,  is  made 
subject,  under  colour  that  Christ,  praying  for  Peter  that  his 
faith  should  not  fail  in  temptation,  gave  all  popes  such  a  pre- 
rogative, that  they  could  not  err  in  faith ;  though  they  were 
wicked  of  life,  void  of  learning,  ignorant  in  the  scriptures, 

[}  Deinde  ilia  quae  in  eis  aperte  posita  sunt,  vel  precepta  vivendi,  vel 
regulae  credendi,  sollertius  diligentiusque  investiganda  sunt,  quae  tanto 
quisque  plura  invenit,  quanto  est  intelligentia  capacior.  In  iis  enim 
quae  aperte  in  scripturis  posita  sunt,  inveniuntur  ilia  omnia  quae  con- 
tinent fidem  moresque  vivendi,  spem  scilicet  atque  caritatem,  de  quibus 
libro  superiore  tractavimus.  Turn  vero  facta  quadam  familiaritate  cum 
ipsa  lingua  divinarum  scripturarum,  in  ea  quiB  obscura  sunt  aperienda 
et  discutienda  pergendum  est,  ut  ad  obscuriores  locutiones  illustrandas  de 
manifestioribus  sumantur  exempla,  et  qusedam  certarum  sententiarum 
testimonia  dubitationem  incertis  auferant.  —  Augustinus  de  Doctrina 
Christiana.  Lib.  ii,  14.  Opera.  Vol.  iii.  p.  24.  edit.  Benedict.  Paris. 
1696.  Ubi  autem  apertius  ponuntur,  ibi  discendum  est  quomodo  in  locis 
intelligantur  obscuris. — Ibid.  Lib.  iii.  87.  p.  56.] 

THE    ANSWER   TO    THE    PREFACE.  11 

destitute  of  the  Spirit  of  God ;  as  is  proved  most  invincibly 
by  example  of  divers  popes  that  have  been  heretics,  and  main- 
tainors of  such  errors  as  are  not  now  in  controversy  between 
us  (lest  they  should  say  we  beg  the  prmciple),  but  of  the 
sect  of  the  Arians,  Monothehtes,  Eutychians,  Saducees,  and 
such  other. 

Martin.    Another  way  is,  to  alter  the  very  original  text  of  the  holy  M7\rtinj  4. 
scripture,  by  adding,  taking  away,  or  changing  it  here  and  there  for  somTwS^ 
their  purpose.     So  did  the  Arians  in  sundry  places,  and  the  Nestorians  "f  the'verT 
in  the  first  epistle  of  St  John,  and  especially  Marcion,  who  was  there-  °'^^^'^^^  '^^^^t- 
fore  called  Mus  Ponticus,  the  mouse  of  Pontus,  because  he  had  gnawn  Marcio.  Ub. 

1.  in  pnnc. 

(as  it  were)  certain  places  with  his  corruptions,  whereof  some  are  said  XertuX  lib.  5. 
to  remain  in  the  Greek  text  until  this  day. 

FulJce.  The  original  text  of  the  holy  scriptm'e  we  alter  Fulke,  4. 
not,  either  by  adding,  taking  away,  or  changing  of  any  letter 
or  syllable,  for  any  private  pm'pose ;  which  were  not  only 
a  thing  most  wicked  and  sacrilegious,  but  also  vain  and  im- 
possible. For,  seeing  not  only  so  many  ancient  copies  of  the 
original  text  are  extant  in  divers  places  of  the  world,  which 
we  cannot,  if  we  would,  corrupt,  and  that  the  same  are  multi- 
phed,  by  printing,  into  so  many  thousand  examples ;  we  should 
be  rather  mad  than  foohsh,  if  we  did  but  once  attempt  such 
a  matter,  for  maintenance  of  any  of  our  opinions.  As  also 
it  is  incredible  that  Marcion,  the  mouse  of  Pontus,  could 
corrupt  all  the  Greek  copies  in  the  world,  (as  Lindanus^,  of 
whom  you  borrowed  that  conceit,  imagineth,)  in  those  places 
in  which  he  is  charged  by  Tertulhan.  For  Marcion's  heresy 
was  not  so  generally  received  by  the  Greek  church,  that  all 
men  would  yield  unto  him ;  neither  was  Tertulhan  so  sound 
of  judgment  in  the  Latin  church,  that  whatsoever  he  judged 
to  be  a  corruption  in  Marcion",  must  of  necessity  be  so 
taken.  But  if  adding  and  detracting  from  the  scripture  be 
proper  notes  of  heretics,  who  can  purge  Stephen  Gardiner 
and  Gregory  Martin  ? — the  one,  for  adding  unto  a  verse  of 
the  psalm  this  pronoun  se,  himself,  to  prove  the  carnal  pre- 
sence, citing  it  thus,  Escam  se  dedit  timentibus  evm,  "  He 
gave  himself  to  be  meat  to  them  that  fear  him ;"  whereas 

P  William  Lindanus,  bom  in  1525,  at  Dordrecht,  a  polemical  writer 
of  the  Romish  Church,  who  has  left  many  works  of  erudition  written  in 
a  pure  style,  but  disfigured  by  the  faults  common  to  authors  of  that  age.] 



the  words  of  the  prophet,  according  to  the  Hebrew,  Greek, 
and  Latin,  are  no  more  but,  Escam  dedit,  "  He  hath 
given  meat\"  &c. — the  other,  in  his  fond  book  of  schism-, 
citing  tliis  text  out  of  1  Cor.  x.  as  many  papists  do  against 
the  certainty  of  faith.  Qui  stat,  mdeat  no  cadat^  "  He  that 
standeth,  let  liim  take  heed  he  fall  not ;"  whereas  not  only 
the  truth  of  the  Greek,  but  even  the  vulgar  Latin  translation 
hath.  Qui  se  existimat  stare,  "  He  that  thinketh  or  supposeth 
that  he  standeth,  let  him  take  heed  that  he  fall  not."  But  of 
such  additions  and  detractions,  used  by  the  Romish  rats,  far 
worse  than  the  mice  of  Pontus,  we  shall  have  more  occasion 
to  speak  hereafter. 

Martin,  5.  Martin.  Another  way  is,  to  make  false  translations  of  the  scriptures, 
hereti^i''  for  the  maintenance  of  error  and  heresy.  So  did  the  Arians  (as  St  Je- 
transiation.  Yo\n.e^  noteth  in  xxvi.  Esa.)  read  and  translate  Proverb  viii.  Dominus 
possedit.  '  creavit  me  in  initio  viarum  suarum,  that  is,  "The  Lord  created  me 
'?^i^  in  the  beginning  of  his  ways,"  so  to  make  Christ,  the  wisdom  of  God, 

a  mere  creature.  St  Augustine  also,  Lib.  V.  cont.  Julian,  c.  2,  noteth  it 
irepi^uj-  as  the  interpretation  of  some  Pelagian,  Gen.  iii.  Fecerunt  sibi  vestimenta, 
fiai-a.  £^j,  pg).jgQ]ffi(if(i^  QY  campestria,  that  is,  "  They  made  themselves  gar- 

""'•'13  ments ;"  whereas  the  word  of  the  scriptm-e  is,  breeches  or  aprons,  pro- 

Aug.  ep.  89.  per  and  peculiar  to  cover  the  secret  parts.  Again,  the  selfsame  heretics 
pec.  mer.  did  read  falsely,  Rom.  v.  Regnavit  mors  ah  Adam  usque  ad  Moysen  etiam 
Im.  T-ous  ui)  ^'^  eos  qui  peccaverunt  in  similitudinem  prcevaricationis  Adce ;  that  is, 
dfiapTii-      "  Death  reigned  from  Adam  to  Moses,  even  on  them  that  sinned  after  the 


similitude  of  the  prevarication  of  Adam;"  to  maintain  their  heresy 
against  original  sin,  that  none  were  infected  therewith,  or  subject  to 
death  and  damnation,  but  by  sinning  actually,  as  Adam  did.  Thus  did 
the  old  heretics. 

FuLKE,  5.  Fullce.  As  touching  false  and  heretical  translations,  which 
is  the  chief  argument  of  this  book,  I  doubt  not  but,  by  the 
grace  of  God,  to  clear  our  Enghsh  translators  from  any  wilful 
corruptions  for  the  maintenance  of  any  error  or  heresy  ;  such 

Qi  "Wherein  (in  the  sacrament  of  the  altar)  God  instituted  me- 
moriam  mirabilium  suorum,  et  escam  se  dedit  timentibus  euni ;  that  is 
to  say,  '  a  memory  of  liis  marvels,  and  gave  himself  meat  to  them 
that  loviQgly  fear  him'."  Gardiner's  "Detection  of  the  Devil's  So- 
pliistrie,  wherein  he  robbeth  the  unlearned  people  of  the  true  beUef 
in  the  most  blessed  Sacrament  of  the  aulter."  London,  1546.  fol.  69.  b. 
See  Psal.  cxi.  4,  5.] 

P  Martin's  "  Treatise  of  Schism,  shewing  that  aU  Catholics  ought  in 
any  wise  to  abstain  altogether  from  heretical  Conventicles,  viz.  their 
Prayers,  Sermons,  &c."    Douay,  1678.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  13 

as  were  those  of  the  Arians  and  Pelagians,  which  Gregory 
Martin,  as  though  he  uttered  some  great  piece  of  skill,  doth 
so  diligently  express.  I  shall  have  occasion  also  to  shew, 
that  the  papists  themselves  of  our  times,  maintaining  their 
corrupt  vulgar  translation  against  the  truth  of  the  original 
texts  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  are  most  guilty  of  such  cor- 
ruption and  falsification;  whereof  although  they  be  not  the  first 
authors,  yet,  by  obstinate  defending  of  such  errors,  they  may 
prove  worse  than  they  which  did  first  commit  them.  For 
the  authors  of  that  vulgar  translation  might  be  deceived, 
either  for  lack  of  exact  knowledge  of  the  tongues,  or  by 
some  corrupt  and  untrue  copies  which  they  followed,  or  else 
perhaps  that  which  they  had  rightly  translated,  by  fault  of 
the  writers  and  negligence  of  the  times  might  be  perverted : 
but  these  men  frowardly  justifying  all  errors  of  that  trans-' 
lation,  howsoever  they  have  been  brought  in,  do  give  plain 
testimony,  that  they  are  not  led  with  any  conscience  of  God's 
truth,  but  wilfully  carried  with  purpose  of  maintaining  their 
own  errors ;  lest,  if  they  did  acknowledge  the  error  of  the 
Romish  church  in  that  one  point,  they  should  not  be  able  to 
defend  any  one  iota  of  their  heresy,  whose  chief  colour  is  the 
credit  and  authority  of  that  particular  and  false  church,  rather 
than  any  reason  or  argument  out  of  the  holy  scriptures,  or 
testimony  of  the  most  ancient  christian  and  catholic  church. 

Martin.     What  these  of  our  days?      Is  it  credible  that  being  so  Mahtin  6 
well  warned  by  the  condemnation  and  detestation  of  them,  they  also 
would  be  as  mad  and  as  impious  as  those?      Heretics,  gentle  reader, 
be  always  like  heretics ;  and  howsoever  they  differ  in  opinions  or  names, 
yet  in  this  point  they  agree,  to  abuse  the  scriptures  for  their  pm-pose 
by  all  means  possibly.     I  will  but  touch  four  points  of  the  five  before 
mentioned,  because  my  purpose  is  to  stay  upon  the  last  only,  and  to  de- 
cipher their  corrupt  translations.     But  if  I  would  stand  upon  the  other  ^^ 
also,  were  it  not  easy  to  shew  the  manner  of  their*  proceeding  against  protestants 
the  scriptures  to  have  been  thus  :  to  deny  some  whole  books  and  parts  ists  use  the 
of  books,  to  call  other  some  into  question,  to  expound  the  rest  at  melm  of  ^^ 
their  pleasure,  to  pick  quarrels  to  the  very  origmal  and  canonical  text,  scriptures''^ 
to  fester  and  infect  the  whole  body  of  the  bible  with  cankered  trans- 
lations ? 

Fulke.  It  is  very  true,  that  so  many  heretics  as  pretend  Fulke,  6. 
the  authority  of  the  holy  scriptures,  abuse  the  same  to  their 
own  destruction;   and  no  heretics   worse  than  the  antichris- 
tians  or  papists :  as  partly  liath  been  seen  already  in  every 

14  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

one  of  your  five  marks,  and  more  may  appear  in  those  four 
points  which  you  will  handle  in  the  preface,  because  the 
argument  of  your  whole  book  is  the  fifth ;  so  that  in  the  end 
you  shall  be  proved  no  wiser  with  your  five  points,  than  he 
that  came  forth  with  his  five  eggs,  and  never  a  good  of  them 
all.  But  you  ask,  if  it  were  not  easy  for  you  to  shew  (if 
you  would  stand  upon  them)  that  the  protestants  use  all 
the  said  five  means  of  defacing  the  scripture  ?  I  answer,  'No, 
and  that  shall  you  see  when  demonstration  is  made,  how  vainly 
you  have  laboured  in  the  last  point ;  which  howsoever  you 
would  have  it  appear  to  be  a  sudden  writing,  of  small  travail, 
by  interlacing  a  few  lines  here  and  there  against  M.  Whitaker  ^ 
against  me  and  some  other ;  yet  it  is  evident,  both  by  Bris- 
tow's  threatening  and  Campian's  promise,  that  it  hath  been 
a  work  of  some  years  unto  you;  wherein,  beside  that  you 
are  beholden  much  to  Lindanus  for  divers  quarrels  against 
Calvin,  and  to  Sir  Thomas  More  for  many  cavillations  against 
W.  Tindal's  translation,  there  is  little  worthy  of  so  long 
study  and  large  promises  as  have  gone  before  this  diligent 
discovery ;  so  that,  if  you  will  make  the  like  trial  in  the  rest, 
you  shall  find  them  as  hard  to  prove  as  this  last. 

Mahtin,  7.       Martin.    Did  not  Luther  deny  St  James'  epistle,  and  so  contemn 

it,  that  he  called  it  an  epistle  of  straw,  and  not  worthy  of  an  apostolical 

Contrat.       Spirit?     Must  I  prove  this  to  M.  Whitaker,  who  would  never  have 

Edm.  Camp,  ^jgj^g^  j^.  g^  vehemently  in  the  superlative  degree  for  shame,  if  he  had 

Dfsc"ofme^'  ^'^^  thought  it  more  shame  to  grant  it  ?     I  need  not  go  far  for  the 

Lather ^in^'  ^^^^er :  ask  M.  Fulke,  and  he  will  flatly  confess  it  was  so.    Ask  Calvin, 

Novo  Test,     in  argum.  ep.  Jacohi.    Ask   Flaccus  lUyricus,  in  argum.   ep.  Jacobi; 

Praefat.         and  you  shall  perceive  it  is  very  true.      I  will  not  send  you  to  the 

catholic  Germans  and  others,  both  of  his  own  time  and  after,  that  wrote 

against  him  in  the  question  of  justification :  among  whom  not  one  omit- 

teth  this,  being  a  thing  so  famous  and  infamous  to  the  confusion  of 

that  arch-heretic. 

Fulke,  7.         Fulke.  I  know  not  whether  ever  Luther  denied  St  James' 
epistle  as  unworthy  of  an  apostohcal  spirit;    but  I  believe 

[}  William  Whitaker,  master  of  St  John's,  Cambridge,  and  Pro- 
fessor of  Divinity,  born  in  1547.  Cardinal  Bellarmine,  his  antagonist, 
pronounced  liim  to  be  the  most  learned  heretic  he  ever  read.  He 
wrote  among  other  treatises,  "Ad  Rationes  Decern  Edmundi  Campiani 
Jesuitse,  quibus  fretus  certamen  Anglicanse  ecclesise  ministris  obtuht 
in  causa  fidei,  responsio  Gulielmi  Whitakeri.  Londini.  1681."  Re- 
printed in  Whitaker's  Works,  Genevse.  1610.  Vol.  i.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  15 

you  may  take  a  twelvemonth's  day  more  to  prove  it,  as  also 
that  he  did  so  contemn  it,  that  he  called  it  an  epistle  of 
straw.  But  M.  Whitaker,  which  denied  it  so  vehemently, 
must  ask  of  me,  who  most  flatly  confess  (saith  M.  Martin) 
that  it  was  so.  I  pray  you,  sir,  urge  me  not  to  confess 
more  than  I  kiiow,  or  ever  knew.  But  you  have  confessed  it 
already  in  two  prmted  books,  Eetent^.  p.  32.  Disc,  of  the 
Rock,  p.  307.  In  the  first  place  cited  there  are  these  words: 
"  But  to  proceed :  Luther  denieth  the  epistle  of  St 
James,  because  it  is  against  his  heresy  of  justifica- 
tion BY  faith  only.  We  allow  not  Luther,  neither  did  he 
allow  himself  therein;  for  he  retracteth  it  afterward."  First, 
those  words  of  Luther's  denial  being  printed  in  a  diverse 
letter,  may  testify  sufficiently  to  every  reasonable  man,  that 
they  are  the  objection  of  Bristow,  and  not  the  confession 
of  Fulke,  who  not  simply  admitteth  them  as  true,  but  by 
concession  proveth  that  if  they  were  true,  yet  Luther's  opinion, 
against  which  he  himself  hath  written,  ought  not  to  pre- 
judice him,  and  much  less  all  other  men  that  never  held  that 
opinion.  In  the  latter  cited  place  are  these  words  :  "And  as 
toucliing  the  epistle  of  St  James,  it  is  a  shameless  slander  of 
him  to  say  that  the  protestants  reject  it ;  but  we  must  hear 
his  reason.  First,  Luther  calleth  it  a  straw  en  epistle^.  So 
Luther  called  the  pope  supreme  head  of  the  church,  and 
the  mass  a  sacrifice  propitiatory.  If  protestants  be  charged 
to  hold  whatsoever  Luther  sometime  held,  and  after  repented," 

\y  A  Retentive  to  stay  good  Christians  in  true  faith  and  religion, 
against  the  motives  of  Richard  Bristow.  Also  a  discovery  of  the  dan- 
gerous Rock  of  the  Popish  Church,  commended  by  Nicholas  Sander, 
D.  of  Divinity.    Done  by  Wm.  Fulk«.  1580.] 

P  Campian,  the  Jesuit,  states  that  the  Reformer  had  characterised 
the  Epistle  of  James  as  "  contentiosam,  tumidam,  aridam,  stramineam, 
et  indignam  spiritu  apostolico."  The  Prefaces  to  the  Argentine,  Wir- 
temburg,  and  Francfort  editions  do  not  however  contain  these  words, 
that  of  Jena  alone  does.  Luther's  opinion  is  exhibited  in  its  truest 
light  by  the  following  remarks:  "Epistolam  banc  S.  Jacobi,  quamvis 
rejectam  a  veteribus,  tamen  laudo,  et  pro  utili  ac  commodo  habeo." 
And  in  his  treatise  De  Captivitate  Babylonica  he  thus  alludes  to  it: 
"Omitto  quod  hanc  epistolam  non  esse  apostoU  Jacobi,  nee  apostolico 
spiritu  dignam,  multi  valde  probabiliter  asserant."  See  the  question 
examined  more  fuUy  Ad  Rationes  Campiani.  pp.  5 — 13.  edit.  1581 ; 
and  in  Whitaker's  Works,  Vol.  i.  p.  60.  edit.  1610.] 



&c.  Who  seeth  not  in  these  words,  that  I  rehearse  the 
objection  of  Saunder,  which  is  common  to  him  with  many 
other  papists ;  which  not  discussing  whether  it  be  true  or 
no,  but  supposing  it  were  as  Saunder  and  the  rest  of  the 
papists  do  affirm,  I  shew  that  it  is  no  good  consequence 
to  charge  all  protestants  with  Luther's  private  opinion,  which 
perhaps  he  held  sometime  and  after  retracted,  more  than  to 
charge  us  with  all  opinions  of  papistry  wliich  he  did  hold, 
before  God  opened  his  eyes  to  see  the  absurdity  of  them  ? 
And  yet,  if  he  had  held  that  opinion,  and  never  retracted 
the  same,  he  were  not  in  worse  case  than  Eusebius\  who  in 
plain  words  affirmeth,  that  the  same  epistle  is  a  counterfeit 
or  bastard  epistle,  hb.  2,  cap.  23.  Do  you  not  see  now,  how 
flatly  Master  Fulke  confesseth  that  it  was  so?  Such  con- 
fessions as  these  are  now  and  then  extorted  out  of  the  an- 
cient fathers'  writings,  which  are  not  living  to  expound  their 
meanings.  But  I  had  thought  Master  Martin  could  have 
discerned  between  a  suppose  or  concession,  and  an  absolute 
assertion  or  a  flat  confession,  especially  of  one  whose  writing 
is  plain  enough,  and  beside  is  alive  to  interpret  liimself,  if 
any  ambiguity  were  therein.  But  be  it  that  Master  Martin 
either  would  not,  or  could  not,  see  in  my  writing  any  tiling  else 
but  a  flat  confession  of  Luther's  denying  of  St  James'  epistle, 
and  calling  it  an  epistle  of  straw  :  of  what  forehead  proceedeth 
it,  that  he  willeth  Master  Whitaker  to  ask  Calvin^,  in  argum. 
epist.  Jacobi,  whether  Luther  so  spake  of  that  epistle? — in 
which  argument  Luther  is  not  once  named  by  Calvin ;  so  far 
is  it  that  he  doth  testify  any  such  thing  against  Luther. 
Only  he  saith,  that  some  there  are  in  these  days  which 
think  that  epistle  not  worthy  of  authority ;  which  could  not 

P  Toiavra  Koi  to.  Kara  rov  ^laKajSov,  ov  ?;  Trptonj  rav  ovofia^ofievav 
KadoXiKcov  {TTiaToXaiv  elvai  Xfyerai.  Icrrtov  be  as  vodevfTM  fiiv'  ov  ttoXXoI 
yovu  rSdV  naXaiiov  aiiTrjs  ffxvrjuovfvcrav,  coy  ov8e  Ttjs  \{yofi€in]s  'lov8a,  fiias 
Koi  avTTJs  ovarjs  Ta>v  eiTTo.  Xeyofievav  Kado\iKa>v.  oficos  8e  tafiev  Kai  ravras 
fifTo.  Tu>v  XoiTrav  iv  TrXeicrTais  8e8r]^ocnevfiepas  eKKXrjcriais. — Eusebii  Pam- 
phili  Eccles.  Hist.  Lib.  ii.  c.  23.  Opera.  Vol.  i.  p.  G6.  edit.  Valesii.] 

Q  Calvin's  words  are:  "Hanc  epistolam  non  sine  certamine  olini 
receptam  a  multis  ecclesiis  fuisse  ex  Hieronynii  Eusebiique  testimonio 
notum  est.  Sunt  etiam  hodie  nonnuUi,  qui  earn  auctoritate  dignam  non 
censeant.  Ego  tamen,  quia  nuUam  ejus  repudiandae  satis  justam  causam 
video,  libenter  cam  sine  controversia  amplector." — Argumentum  cum 
Job.  Calvini  Commentariis.   p.  91.  edit.  Stephan.  1560.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    TREFACE.  l7 

be  understood  of  Luther,  who  long  before  Calvin  wrote  that 
argument  'had  forsaken  that  opinion,  if  ever  he  held  any 
such ;  as  all  those  Dutch  bibles  and  testaments  of  Luther's 
translation,  m  which  those  words  so  much  baited  at,  and  so 
much  sought  for,  are  omitted,  do  give  sufficient  testimony. 
What  Flaccus  lilyricus^  reporteth,  who  perhaps  held  that 
opinion  himself,  and  would  father  it  upon  Luther,  I  have 
neither  opportunity  to  seek,  nor  care  to  know.  But  how 
great  a  matter  it  is,  that  all  the  popish  Germans,  and  other, 
who  have  written  against  Luther,  do  so  spitefully  gnaw  upon, 
I  have  learned  at  length  by  relation  of  Master  Whitaker, 
whom  you  send  to  ask  of  me ;  who,  after  long  search  and 
many  editions  turned  over,  at  the  length  hghted  upon  a 
Dutch  testament,  by  likelihood  one  of  the  first  that  Luther 
did  set  forth  in  the  German  tongue,  in  which  he  findeth 
neither  denial  of  St  James'  epistle  to  be  canonical,  nor  af- 
firmation that  it  is  unworthy  of  an  apostolical  spirit;  no, 
nor  that  whereof  there  hath  been  so  much  babbhng  of  all 
the  papists,  that  he  calleth  it  an  epistle  of  straw  simply 
and  in  contempt,  but  only  in  comparison  of  the  epistles  of 
Paul  and  Peter,  and  other  books  of  the  new  testament ;  the 
excellency  of  which,  one  above  another,  after  he  hath  shewed 
in  sundry  degrees,  at  last  he  saith,  the  epistle  of  James  in 
comparison  of  these  is  straw,  or  like  straw :  which  he  saith 
not  in  respect  of  the  credit  or  authority  thereof,  but  in  regard 
of  the  argument  or  matter  handled  therein ;  which  all  wise  and 
godly  men  will  confess  to  be  not  so  excellent  and  necessary, 
as  the  matter  of  the  holy  gospels  and  epistles  of  some  other 
of  the  apostles,  namely  of  Paul,  Peter,  and  John.  Our 
Saviour  Christ  himself,  John  iii.  12,  calleth  the  doctrine  of 
regeneration,  in  such  plain  manner  as  he  uttered  it  to  Nico- 
demus,  earthly  things,  in  comparison  of  other  greater  mysteries, 
which  he  could  have  expressed  in  more  heavenly  and  spu^itual 
sort.  "  If  I  have  spoken  to  you,"  saith  he,  "  of  earthly 
tilings,  and  you  have  not  beheved,  how,  if  I  should  speak  to 
you  of  heavenly  things,  will  you  beheve?"  Were  not  he  an 
honest  and  a  wise  man,  that  upon   these  words  of  Christ, 

P  Mathias  Flack,  or  (as  the  name  was  latinised,  from  Albona  in  Istria, 
a  part  of  ancient  Illyria,  where  he  was  bom  in  1521,)  Flaccus  Illyricus, 
was  a  famous  protestant  theologian.  He  studied  under  Luther  and  Me- 
lancthon,  and  became  a  most  formidable  enemy  to  the  Church  of  Rome.] 

r  1  2 


18  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

spoken  in  comparison,  would  conclude  by  his  authority,  that 
regeneration  were  a  contemptible  matter,  a  thing  not  spi- 
ritual, not  heavenly,  but  simply  and  altogether  earthly  ?  And 
yet  with  as  good  reason,  for  ought  I  see  or  can  learn  of 
Luther's  words  concerning  this  matter,  he  might  so  infer,  as 
the  papists  do  enforce  the  hke  against  Luther.  Wherefore  it  is 
nothing  else  but  a  famous  and  infamous  cavillation,  to  the 
confusion  of  all  the  papists  which  write  against  Luther,  that 
no  one  of  them  omitteth  upon  so  false  and  frivolous  a  ground 
to  slander  liim  so  heinously,  and  to  charge  all  protestants 
with  his  assertion  so  enviously  :  wliich,  if  it  were  his,  should 
not  be  so  evil  as  other  cathoUc  writers  have  affirmed  of 
tliat  epistle,  and  therefore  not  sufficient  to  charge  him,  and 
much  less  others,  with  heresy ;  but  being  not  his  simple  affir- 
mation, yet  because  it  hath  been  offensively  taken,  he  himself 
hath  put  it  out  and  given  it  over.  0  what  a  stir  would 
they  keep,  if  they  had  any  weighty  matter  of  truth  to  bur- 
then him  withal ! 

Martin,  8.        Martin.    To  let  this  pass  :  Toby,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  the  Machabees, 

Cone. Cart. 3.  are  they  not  most  certainly  rejected?    And  yet  they  were  allowed  and 

can.  4/.         received  for  canonical  by  the  same  authority  that  St  James'  epistle  was. 

Argu.  in        This  epistle  the  Calvinists  are  content  to  admit,  because  so  it  pleased 

Calvin :  those  books  they  reject,  because  so  also  it  pleased  him.    And 

why  did  it  so  please  Calvin  ?    Under  pretence  forsooth,  that  they  were 

once  doubted  of,  and  not  taken  for  canonicaL    But  is  that  the  true 

Whjtak.i       cause  indeed  ?    How  do  they  then  receive  St  James'  epistle  as  canoni- 

Fbid.'  cal,  having  been  before  doubted  of  also,  yea,  as  they  say,  rejected  ? 

FuLKE,  8.  Fulke.  You  may  well  let  it  pass,  for  it  is  not  worth  the 
time  you  spend  in  writing  of  it ;  and  if  you  had  been  wise, 
you  would  utterly  have  omitted  it.  But  what  say  you  of 
Tobit,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  the  Machabees,  most  certainly  by 
us  rejected?  They  were  allowed  (you  say)  for  canonical  by 
the  same  authority  that  St  James'  epistle  was.  And  tliink 
you  that  St  James'  epistle  was  never  allowed  for  canonical 
before  the  third  coimcil  of  Carthage  ?  For  of  the  other  it 
is  certain,  they  were  never  received  by  the  chm^ch  of  the 
Israehtes  before  Christ's  coming,  nor  of  the  apostolic  and 
pi'imitive  church  for  more  than  300  years  after,  as  both  Eu- 
sebius  out  of  Origenes,  and  the  council  of  Laodicea,  Can.  59. 
confirmed  afterward  by  the  sixth  general  council  of  Constan- 

\}  Whitakeri  ad  Rationes  Campiani  Responsic] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  19 

tinople,  sheweth  for  the  Greek  church,  and  St  Jerome  in  ^^^- «  cap- 
Prologo  Galeato^  for  the  Latin  church.  As  for  the  provmcial 
council  of  Carthage,  holden  by  forty-four  bishops  of  Africa, 
if  we  were  bound  to  receive  it  for  these  books,  we  must 
also  acknowledge  five  books  of  Salomon,  which  in  the  same 
council  are  authorised,  whereas  the  church  never  knew  but 
of  three.  And  although  the  book  of  Wisdom  should  be  as- 
cribed to  Salomon,  there  could  be  but  four.  Again,  how 
they  understand  the  word  canonical,  it  may  be  gathered  both 
out  of  the  words  of  the  same  canon,  where  they  give  none 
other  reason  of  the  approbation  of  all  those  books  of  scrip- 
ture, but  that  they  have  received  them  of  their  fathers  to  be 
read  in  the  church ;  and  also  out  of  St  Augustine,  who  was  De  doot. 
one  present  at  the  same  council ;  which  after  he  hath  declared  2,  cap.  8. 
how  a  man  should  discern  the  canonical  scriptures  from  other 
writings  by  following  the  authority  of  the  catholic  churches, 
especially  those  that  have  deserved  to  have  apostolic  sees, 
and  to  receive  their  epistles,  he  addeth  further  :  Tenehit  igitur 
hunc  modum  in  scripturis  canonicis,  ut  eas  quce  ah  omnibus 
accipiuntur  ecclesiis  catholicis,  prceponaf  eis  quas  qucedam 
non  accipiunt ;  in  eis  vero  quw  non  accipiuntur  ah  omni- 
bus^ prwponat  eas,  quas  plures  gravioresque  accipiunt^  eis 
quas  pauciores  minorisque  auctoritatis  ecclesioe  tenent.  Si 
autem  alias  invenerit  a  plurihus,  alias  a  qraviorihus  haheri, 
quanquam  hoc  invenire  non  possit,  asqualis  tamen  auctoritatis 
eas  hahendas  puto.  Totus  autem  canon  scripturarum,  in  quo 
istam  considerationem  versandam  dicimus,  his  I'lbris  continetur. 
He  shall  hold  therefore  tliis  mean  in  the  canonical  scrip- 
tures, that  he  prefer  those  which  are  received  of  all  catholic 
churches,  before  those  scriptm-es  wliich  some  churches  do 
not  receive.  But  in  those  which  are  not  received  of  all,  let 
him  prefer  those  scriptures  which  the  greater  number  and 
graver  churches  do  receive,  before  those  which  chm'ches  fewer 
in  number  and  of  less  authority  do  hold.      But  if  he  shall 

P  Non  idem  ordo  est  apud  Grsecos,  qui  integi'e  sapiunt  et  fidem 
rectam  sectantur,  epistolarum  septem,  quse  canonicse  nuncupantur,  qui 
in  Latinis  codicibus  invenitur.  Quod  quia  Petrus  primus  est  in  numero 
apostolorum,  primae  sint  etiam  ejus  epistolae  in  ovdine  ceterarum.  Sed 
sicut  evangelistas  dudum  ad  veritatis  lineam  correximus ;  ita  has  proprio 
ordini,  Deo  nos  juvante,  reddidimus.  Est  enim  prima  earum  una  Jacobi; 
Petri  duae ;  Johannis  tres ;  et  Judse  una. — Hieronym.  Prolog.  Septem 
Epistolarum  Canonicarum.  Opera.  Vol.  i.  p.  1667.] 

2 — 2 

20  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

find  some  scriptures  to  be  had  of  fewer  churches  and  other 
some  of  graver  churches,  although  you  cannot  find  this  thing, 
yet  I  think  they  are  to  he  accounted  of  equal  authority. 
Now  the  whole  canon  of  scriptures  in  which  we  say  this 
consideration  must  be  occupied  is  contained  in  these  books : 
Five  books  of  Moses,  that  is  Genesis,  Exodus,  &c.  By  this 
saying  of  Augustine  it  is  manifest,  that  he  calleth  canonical 
scriptures,  not  only  those  books  that  ought  of  necessity  to 
be  received  of  all  churches ;  but  also  such  as  were  received 
of  some,  and  of  some  were  not ;  in  which  number  were  these 
books  of  Tobit,  Ecclesiasticus,  and  the  Machabees,  wliich 
by  his  own  rule  were  not  to  be  received  as  of  absolute  and 
sovereign  authority,  because  the  apostolic  churches  of  Asia 
and  Europe,  and  those  of  gravest  authority,  among  which 
was  the  church  of  Rome  in  that  time,  did  not  receive  them ; 
as  witnesseth  not  only  St  Jerome,  a  priest  of  Rome,  but 
also  Ruffinus  of  Aquileia,  in  symbolo^,  who  both  declare  what 
books  were  received  in  their  churches  as  canonical,  and  of 
irrefragable  authority  to  build  principles  of  faith  upon  them, 
and  what  books  were  admitted  only  to  be  read  for  instruc- 
tion of  manners.  And  therefore,  according  to  the  rule  of 
Augustine  and  testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and  because 
it  consenteth  with  the  rest  of  the  scriptures,  and  not  for 
Calvin's  pleasure,  we  receive  the  epistle  of  St  James,  though 
it  hath  not  been  always  and  of  all  churches  received.  Con- 
cerning the  name  of  Calvinists,  as  of  all  other  nick-names, 
that  it  pleaseth  you  of  your  charity  to  bestow  upon  us,  it 
shall  suffice  to  protest  once  for  all,  that  we  acknowledge 
none  other  name  of  our  profession,  but  Christians  and  catho- 
hcs ;  and  that  we  have  neither  received  that  epistle,  nor 
rejected  the  other,  because  it  pleased  Calvin  so.  This  may 
Anno  1537'    ^6^^®   ^^r   a  clcar  demonstration,    that  in  the  first  English^ 

\}  Sciendum  tamen  est,  quod  et  alii  libri  sunt  qui  non  canonici,  sed 
ecclesiastici  a  majoribus  appellati  sunt :  ut  est  Sapientia  Salomonis,  et 
alia  Sapientia  quae  dicitur  filii  Syrach,  qui  liber  apud  Latinos  hoc  ipso 
generali  vocabulo  Ecclesiasticus  appellatur;  quo  vocabulo  non  auctor 
libelli,  sed  scrip turae  qualitas  cognominata  est.  Ejusdem  ordinis  est 
libellus  Tobife,  et  Judith,  et  Machabaeorum  libri. — Expositio  in  Sym- 
bolum  Apostolorum  Ruffini.  p.  397,  398.  ed.  Aid.  1563.] 

P  In  the  bible  of  1537,  known  under  the  name  of  the  translator, 
Thomas  Matthew,  tliis  is  the  case.  Also  in  Coverdale's  bible  of  1537, 
4to.,  imprynted  in  Southwarke  by  James  Nycolson.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  21 

bibles  that  were  printed  under  the  name  of  Thomas  Matthew, 
before  Calvin  wrote  any  word  of  the  rejection  of  those  books, 
or  of  receiving  of  the  other,  they  are  called  Apocrypha,  and 
printed  with  other  of  that  mark  by  themselves,  and  the  epistle 
of  St  James  without  any  question  acknowledged  to  be  one  of 
the  canonical  epistles ;  whereas  Calvin's  institution  was  first 
printed  anno  1536,  and  his  argument  upon  St  James'  epistle, 
1551.  You  may  see  what  honest  dealing  the  papists  use  to 
bring  the  truth  into  discredit,  and  the  professors  thereof  into 
hatred  with  the  simple  and  unlearned  people,  bearing  them  in 
hand,  that  we  have  no  cause  to  receive  or  refuse  books  of  scrip- 
tm'e,  but  Calvin's  pleasure.  But  the  God  of  truth  will  one  day 
reward  these  impudent  hars  and  shameless  slanderers. 

Well,  let  us  now  see  under  what  pretence  it  pleased  Cal-  . 
vin  to  reject  these  books :  "  Under  pretence  forsooth,  (saith 
Martin,)  that  they  were  once  doubted  of,  and  not  taken  for 
canonical."  I  pray  you.  Sir,  where  doth  Calvin  pretend  that 
only  cause  ?  In  his  Instit.  hb.  iii.  c.  5.  sec.  8,  he  allegeth 
divers  other  causes  touching  the  books  of  Machabees,  as  every 
man  that  will  may  read.  Shame  you  nothing  to  forge  such 
manifest  untruths,  and  that  in  such  matters  as  you  may  be 
convinced  in  them  by  ten  thousand  witnesses?  What  credit 
shall  be  given  to  you  in  matters  that  consist  upon  your  own 
bare  testimony,  when  you  force  not  to  feign  of  other  men  that 
wherein  every  man  may  reprove  you  ?  And  as  for  the  only 
pretence  you  speak  of,  Calvin  doth  so  httle  esteem  it,  that 
notwithstanding  the  same,  he  doubteth  not  to  receive  the 
epistle  of  St  James,  because  it  is  agreeable  to  the  whole  body 
of  the  canonical  scripture;  as,  if  you  had  read  his  argument 
upon  that  epistle,  you  might  easUy  have  perceived. 

Martin.     Mark,  gentle  reader,  for  thy  soul's  sake,  and  thou  shalt  Martin,  9. 
find  that  heresy,  and  only  heresy,  is  the  cause  of  their  denying  these  m.'  w^'ita- 
books ;    so  far,  that  against  the  orders  and  hierarchies  and  particular  worfs'con-^ 
patronages  of  angels  one  of  them  writeth  thus  in  the  name  of  the  th™"own 
rest :   "  We  pass  not  for  that  Raphael  of  Toby,  neither  do  we  acknow-  ^o'^k'^^„hich 
ledge  those  seven  angels  which  he  speaketh  of;  all  this  is  far  from  ^|f''^°'^''^'{jj 
canonical  scriptures,  tliat  the  same  Raphael  recordeth,  and  savoureth  of  Tobit  and 

,,  Ecclesiasti- 

I  wot  not  what  superstition. '     Against  free-will  thus  :  "  I  little  care  cus  to  be 
for  the  place  of  Ecclesiasticus,  neither  will  I  believe  free-will,  though  holy  scrip- 
he  affirm  an  hundred  times,  that  before  men  is  life  and  death."    And  other.   Do 

\y  Ad  Rationes  Campiani  Responsio,  p.  17.] 

22  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

thev  read  against  prayer  for  the  dead,  and  intercession  of  saints,  thus :   "  As  for 

churches  the  book  of  the  Machabees,  I  do  care  less  for  it  than  for  the  other. 

and  super-  Judas'  dream  concerning  Onias  I  let  pass  as  a  dream."    This  is  their 

books'for  reverence  of  the  scriptures,  Avhich  have  universally  been  reverenced  for 

ture  oris  Canonical  in  the  church  of  God  above  1100  years.     Con.  Cart.  3.  and 

that  thus'*"  particularly  of  many  fathers  long  before,  Aug.  de  doct.  Christ.  Lib.  ii. 

disfjraceth        q^  g^ 
their  order 

of^daiiyser-  iP^/i^g.  The  mouth  that  lieth  kUleth  the  soul.     The  reader 

FuLKE,  9.  jnay  think  you  have  small  care  of  his  soul's  health,  when 
by  such  impudent  lying  you  declare  that  you  have  so  small 
regard  of  your  own.  But  what  shall  he  mark  ?  "  That 
heresy,  &c."  You  were  best  say  that  Eusebius,  Jerome,  Ruf- 
fine,  and  all  the  churches  in  their  times,  were  heretics,  and 
that  only  heresy  was  the  cause  of  their  denial  of  these  books. 
For  such  reasons  as  moved  them  move  us,  and  something 
also  their  authority.  But  how  prove  you  that  only  heresy 
moveth  us  to  reject  them?  Because  M.  Whitaker  against 
the  orders,  and  hierarchies,  and  particular  patronages  of 
angels,  writeth  in  the  name  of  the  rest,  that  "  we  pass  not," 
&c.  Take  heed,  lest  upon  your  bare  surmise  you  behe  him, 
where  you  say  he  writeth  in  the  name  of  the  rest ;  as  in  the 
next  section  following  you  say,  he  writeth  in  the  name  of  both 
the  universities,  for  which  I  am  sure  he  had  no  commission 
from  either  of  them ;  although  he  did  write  that  wliich  may 
well  be  avouched  by  both  the  universities ;  yet  I  know  his 
modesty  is  such,  as  he  will  not  presume  to  be  advocate  for 
both  the  universities,  and  much  less  for  the  whole  church, 
except  he  were  lawfully  called  thereto.  This  is  a  common 
practice  of  you  papists,  to  bear  the  world  in  hand,  that  what- 
soever is  Avritten  by  any  of  us  in  defence  of  the  truth,  is  set 
forth  in  the  name  of  all  the  rest,  as  though  none  of  us  could 
say  more  in  any  matter  than  any  one  of  us  hath  written  ;  or 
that  if  any  one  of  us  chance  to  slip  in  any  small  matter, 
though  it  be  but  a  wrong  quotation,  you  might  open  your 
wide  slanderous  mouths  against  the  whole  church  for  one 
man's  particular  offence.  Now  touching  any  thing  that  M. 
Whitaker  hath  written,  you  shall  find  him  sufficient  to  main- 
tain it  against  a  stronger  adversary  than  you  are ;  and  there- 
fore I  wUl  meddle  the  less  in  his  causes.  And  for  the  orders 
and  patronage  or  protection  of  angels  by  God's  appointment, 
we  have  sufficient  testimony  in  the  canonical  scriptures,  that 
we  need  not  the  uncertain  report  of  Tobie's  book  to  instruct 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  23 

US  what  to  think  of  them.  But  as  for  the  hierarchies  and 
patronage  of  angels,  that  many  of  you  papists  have  imagined 
and  written  of,  neither  the  canonical  scriptures,  nor  yet  the  apo- 
cryphal books  now  in  controversy,  are  sufficient  to  give  you 
warrant.  The  like  I  say  of  free  will,  prayer  for  the  dead, 
and  intercession  of  saints.  But  it  grieveth  you  that  those 
apocryphal  scriptures,  which  have  been  universally  received 
for  canonical  in  the  church  of  God  above  1100  years,  should 
find  no  more  reverence  among  us.  Still  your  mouth  runneth 
over.  For  ia  the  time  of  the  canon  of  the  council  of  Car- 
thage 3.  which  you  quote,  these  books  were  not  universally 
reverenced  as  canonical.  And  Augustine  himself,  speaking 
of  the  book  of  Machabees,  Cont.  2.  Gaud.^  Ep.  c.  23.  con- 
fesseth  that  the  Jews  account  it  not  as  the  Law,  and  the 
Prophets,  and  the  Psalms,  to  which  our  Lord  giveth  testi- 
mony as  to  his  witnesses,  saying,  "It  behoveth  that  all  things 
should  be  fulfilled  which  are  written  in  the  Law,  and  in  the 
Prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms  concerning  me ;  but  it  is  received 
of  the  church  not  unprofitably,  if  it  be  soberly  read  or  heard." 
This  writeth  St  Augustine,  when  he  was  pressed  with  the 
authority  of  that  book  by  the  Donatists,  which  defended  that 
it  was  lawful  for  them  to  kill  themselves  by  example  of 
Razis,  who  is  by  the  author  of  that  book  commended  for 
that  fact.  He  saith,  "  it  is  received  not  unprofitably,"  and 
immediately  after,  "especially  for  those  Machabees  that  suffered 
patiently  horrible  persecution  for  testimony  of  God's  rehgion, 
to  encourage  Cliristians  by  their  example."  Finally,  he 
addeth  a  condition  of  the  receiving  it,  "if  it  be  soberly  read 
or  heard."     These  speeches  declare,  that  it  was  not  received 

[}  Et  hanc  quidem  scripturam,  quas'appellatur  MachabjEorum,  non 
habent  Judaei  sicut  legem  et  prophetas  et  psalmos,  quibus  Dominus 
testimonium  perliibet  tamquam  testibus  suis,  dicens,  Oportebat  impleri 
omnia  quse  scripta  sunt  in  lege  et  prophetis  et  in  psalmis  de  me:  sed 
recepta  est  ab  ecclesia  non  inutiliter,  si  sobrie  legatur  vel  audiatur, 
maxima  propter  illos  Machabaeos  qui  pro  Dei  lege  sicut  veri  martyres 
a  persecutoribus  tam  indigna  atque  horrenda  perpessi  sunt;  ut  etiam 
hinc  populus  Christianus  adverteret,  quoniam  non  sunt  condignse  pas- 
siones  hujus  temporis  ad  futuram  gloriam  quae  revelabitur  in  nobis,  pro 
quibus  passus  est  Christus,  si  tanta  patientissime  pertulerunt  jiro  lege 
quam  dedit  Deus  per  famulum  hominibus  illis  pro  quibus  nondum  tra- 
diderat  Filium. — Augustin.  contra  Gaudentium  Donatist.  Episc.  Lib.  i. 
cap.  38.    Opera.  Vol.  ix.  p.  656-6.] 

24  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

without  all  controversy  as  the  authentical  word  of  God :  for 
then  should  it  be  received  necessarily,  and  because  it  is  God's 
word  especially,  and  howsoever  it  be  read  or  heard,  it  is 
received  of  the  church,  not  only  necessarily,  but  also  profit- 
ably. Beside  this,  even  the  decree  of  Gelasius,  which  was 
near  100  years  after  that  council  of  Carthage,  alloweth  but 
one  book  of  the  Machabees.  Wherefore  the  universal  reve- 
rence that  is  boasted  of  cannot  be  justified. 

But  M.  Whitaker  is  charged  in  the  margin  to  condemn 
the  service-book,  which  appointeth  these  books  of  Toby  and 
Ecclesiasticus  to  be  read  for  holy  scripture  as  the  other. 
And  where  find  you  that  in  the  service-book,  M.  Martin? 
Can  you  speak  nothing  but  untruths  ?  If  they  be  appointed 
to  be  read,  are  they  appointed  to  be  read  for  holy  scripture, 
and  for  such  scripture  as  the  other  canonical  books  are  ? 
The  service-book  appointeth  the  litany,  divers  exhortations 
and  prayers,  yea,  homihes  to  be  read  :  are  they  therefore  to 
be  read  for  holy  and  canonical  scriptures  ?  But  you  ask,  Do 
they  read  in  their  churches  apocryphal  and  superstitious  books 
for  holy  scripture  ?  No,  verily.  But  of  the  name  apocryphal 
I  must  distinguish,  which  sometimes  is  taken  for  all  books 
read  of  the  church,  wliich  are  not  canonical ;  sometime  for 
such  books  only  as  are  by  no  means  to  be  suffered,  but  are  to 
be  hid  or  abolished.  These  books  therefore  in  controversy, 
with  other  of  the  same  sort,  are  sometimes  called  Hagiographa, 
holy  writings,  as  of  St  ievornQ  prcefat.  in  lib.  Tobiw;  some- 
times Ecclesiastica,  Ecclesiastical  writings,  and  so  are  they 
inexposi-     called  of  Ruffinus.     Because  (saith  he)  they  were  appointed 

tione  sym-  _     ^  /  u  j.  ± 

^"-  by  our  elders  to  be  read    in    the  churches,  but  not  to  be 

brought  forth  to  confirm  authority  of  faith  :  but  other  scrip- 
tures they  named  apocryphal,  wliich  they  would  not  have  to 
be  read  in  the  churches.  So  saith  St  Jerome  in  prcsfat.  in 
Proverb.  "  Even  as  the  church  readeth  indeed  the  books  of 
Judith,  Tobias,  and  the  Machabees,  but  yet  receiveth  them 
not  among  the  canonical  scriptures;  so  let  it  read  these  two 
books  (of  Ecclesiasticus  and  Wisdom)  for  the  edifying  of  the 
people,  not  for  the  confirmation  of  the  authority  of  ecclesi- 
astical doctrines."  These  ancient  writers  shall  answer  for  our 
service-book,  that  although  it  appoint  these  writings  to  be 
read,  yet  it  doth  not  appoint  them  to  be  read  for  canonical 
scriptures.     Albeit  they  are  but  sparingly  read,  by  order  of 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  25 

our  service-book,  which  for  the  Lord's  day,  and  other  festival 
days,  commonly  appointeth  the  first  lesson  out  of  the  canonical 
scriptures.  And  as  for  superstition,  although  M.  Whitaker 
say,  that  some  one  thing  savoureth  of  I  know  not  what  super- 
stition, he  doth  not  by  and  by  condemn  the  whole  book  for 
superstitious,  and  altogether  unworthy  to  be  read ;  neither  can 
he  thereby  be  proved  a  puritan,  or  a  disgracer  of  the  order  of 
daUy  service, 

Martin.    As  for  parts  of  books,  do  they  not  reject  certain  pieces  MAinrN, 
of  Daniel  and  of  Hester,  because  they  are  not  in  the  Hebrew,  which  ^^• 
reason  St  Augustine  rejecteth;   or  because  they  were  once  doubted  of 
by  certain  of  the  fathers  1  by  which  reason  some  part  of  St  Mark's 
and  St  Luke's  gospel  might  now  also  be  called  in  controversy,  spe- 
cially if  it  be  true  which  M.  Whitaker  by  a  figurative  speech  more 
than  insinuateth,  That  he  cannot  see  by  what  right  that  which  once  p.  lo, 
was  not  in  credit  should  by  time  win  authority.     Forgetting  himself 
by  and  by,  and  in  the  very  next  lines  admitting  St  James'   epistle,  m.  Whita- 
though  before  doubted  of,  for  canonical  scriptures,  imless  they  receive    ^^^    "  ^' 
it  but  of  their  courtesy,  and  so  may  receive  it  when  it  shall  please 
them,  which  must  needs  be  gathered  of  his  words,  as  also  many  other 
notorious  absurdities,  contradictions,  and  dumb  blanks.     Which  only 
to  note  were  to  confute  M.  Whitaker  by  himself,  being  the  answer 
for  both  universities. 

Fulke.  As  for  pieces  of  Daniel  and  of  Esther,  we  reject  Fulke,10. 
none ;  but  only  we  discern  that  which  was  written  by  Daniel  in 
deed,  from  that  wliich  is  added  by  Theodotion  the  false  Jew,  and 
that  which  was  written  by  the  Spirit  of  God  of  Esther,  from 
that  which  is  vainly  added  by  some  Greekish  counterfeiter.  But 
the  reason  why  we  reject  those  patches  (you  say)  is  because 
they  are  not  in  the  Hebrew,  wliich  reason  St  Augustine  re- 
jecteth. Here  you  cite  St  Augustine  at  large,  without  quota- 
tion in  a  matter  of  controversy.  But  if  we  may  trust  you  that 
St  Augustine  rejecteth  this  reason,  yet  we  may  be  bold  upon 
St  Jerome's  authority  to  reject  whatsoever  is  not  found  in 
the  canon  of  the  Jews,  written  in  Hebrew  or  Chaldee :  for 
whatsoever  was  such,  St  Jerome  did  thrust  through  with  a 
spit  or  obelisk,  as  not  worthy  to  be  received.  Witness  hereof 
St  Augustine  himself,  Epist.  ad  Hier}  8  and  10,  in  which  he 

\}  Petimus  ergo,  et  nobiscum  petit  omnis  Africanarum  ecclesiarum 
studiosa  societas,  ut  interpretandis  eorum  libris,  qui  Grsce  scripturas 
nostras  quam  optime  tractaverunt,  curara  atque  operam  impendere  non 
graveris.    Potes  enim  efficere,  ut  nos  quoque  habcamus  tales  illos  viros. 

26  THB    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

dissuaded  him  from  translating  the  Bcriptures  of  the  Old 
Testament  out  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  after  the  seventy  inter- 
preters ;  whose  reasons  as  they  were  but  frivolous,  so  they 
are  derided  by  St  Jerome,  who,  being  learned  in  the  Hebrew 
and  Chaldee  tongues,  refused  to  be  taught  by  Augustine,  that 
was  ignorant  in  them,  what  was  to  be  done  in  translations  out 
of  them.  Also  Jerome  himself^  testifieth,  that  Daniel  in  the 
Hebrew  hath  neither  the  story  of  Susanna,  nor  the  hymn  of 
the  three  children,  nor  the  fable  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon : 
wliich  we,  (saith  he,)  because  they  are  dispersed  throughout 
the  whole  world,  have  added,  setting  a  spit  before  them, 
which  thrusteth  them  through,  lest  we  should  seem  among 
the  ignorant  to  have  cut  off  a  great  part  of  the  book.  The 
like  he  writeth  of  the  vain  additions  that  were  in  the  vulgar 
edition  unto  the  book  of  Esther,  both  in  the  preface,  and 
after  the  end  of  that  which  he  translated  out  of  the  Hebrew. 
There  are  other  reasons  also,  beside  the  authority  of  St  Jerome, 
that  move  us  not  to  receive  them.  As  that  in  the  story  of 
Susanna,  magistrates  and  judgment  of  life  and  death  are 
attributed  to  the  Jews  being  in  captivity  of  Babylon,  which 
hath  no  similitude  of  truth.     Beside,  out  of  the  first  chapter 

et  unum  potissimum,  quern  tu  libentius  in  tuis  Uteris  sonas.  De  ver- 
tendis  autem  in  Latinam  linguam  Sanctis  Uteris  canonicis  laborare  te 
noUem,  nisi  eo  modo  quo  Job  interpretatus  es ;  ut  signis  adhibitis  quid 
inter  banc  tuam  et  Septuagiuta,  quorum  est  gravissima  auctoritas,  inter- 
pretationcm  distet,  appareat. — Augustin.  ad  Hieron.  Ep.  xxviii.  Opera. 
Vol.  11.  p.  46. 

Ego  sane  te  mallem  Grsecas  potius  canonicas  nobis  interpretari  scrip- 
turas,  quae  Septuaginta  interpretum  perhibentur.  Perdurum  erit  enim, 
si  tua  interpretatio  per  muUas  ecclesias  frequentius  coeperit  lectitari, 
quod  a  Graecis  ecclesiis  Latinse  ecclesiae  dissonabunt,  maxime  quia  facUe 
contradictor  convincitur  Graeco  prolato  Ubro,  id  est  liaguae  notissimae. — 
Augustin.  Lxxi.  Epist.  ad  Hieron.    Opera.  Vol.  ii.  p.  160.] 

[^  Cui  et  Eusebius  et  ApoUinarius  pari  sententia  responderunt:  Susannae 
Belisque  ac  Draconis  fabulas  non  contineri  in  Hebraico ;  sed  partem  esse 
prophetiae  Abacuc  filii  Jesu  de  tribu  Levi,  sicut  juxta  lxx.  interpretes 
in  titulo  ejusdem  Belis  fabulae  ponitur:  Homo  quidam  eratsacercbs,  nomine 
Daniel,  filius  Abda.  conviua  regis  Babylonis :  quum  Danielem  et  tres  pue- 
ros  de  tribu  Juda  fuisse  sancta  scriptura  testetur.  Unde  et  nos  ante 
annos  plurimos  quum  verteremus  Danielem,  has  visiones  obelo  prtenota- 
vimus,  significantes  eas  in  Hebraico  non  haberi. — Hieronymi  Explanatio 
in  Danielem  Prophetam.  Opera.  Tom.  i.  p.  1074.  Augustini  Epist.  ad 
Hieronymum,  lxx.  p.  611.  Hieronym.  Opera.  Vol.  iv.  Hieronymi 
Epist.  ad  Augustinum,  lxxi  v.  pp.  626,  627.] 



of  the  true  Daniel  it  is  manifest,  that  Daniel  being  a  young 
man  was  carried  captive  into  Babylon  in  the  days  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar ;  but  in  this  counterfeit  story  Daniel  is  made  a 
young  child  in  the  time  of  Astyages,  which  reigned  immediately 
before  Cyrus  of  Persia.  Likewise  in  the  story  of  Bel  and  the 
Dragon,  Daniel  is  said  to  have  lived  with  the  same  king 
Cyrus ;  and  after,  when  he  was  cast  into  the  lions'  den,  the 
prophet  Habakkuk  was  sent  to  him  out  of  Jewry,  who  pro- 
phesied before  the  first  coming  of  the  Chaldees,  and  therefore 
could  not  be  alive  in  the  days  of  Cyrus,  which  was  more  than 
seventy  years  after.  The  additions  unto  the  book  of  Esther, 
in  many  places,  bewray  the  spirit  of  man ;  as  that  they  are 
contrary  to  the  truth  of  the  story,  containing  vain  repetitions, 
and  amphfications  of  that  which  is  contained  in  the  true 
history ;  and  that  which  most  manifestly  convinceth  the  for- 
gery, that  in  the  epistle  of  Artaxerxes,  cap.  16,  Haman  is 
called  a  Macedonian,  which  in  the  true  story  is  termed  an 
Agagite,  that  is  an  Amalekite,  whereas  the  Macedonians  had 
nothing  to  do  with  the  Persians  many  years  after  the  death 
of  Esther  and  Haman.  I  omit  that  in  the  cap.  15,  ver.  12, 
the  author  maketh  Esther  to  lie  unto  the  king,  in  saying  that 
his  countenance  was  fuU  of  all  grace ;  or  else  he  heth  liimself, 
V.  17,  where  he  saith,  the  king  beheld  her  in  the  vehemency 
of  his  anger,  and  that  he  was  exceeding  terrible. 

As  for  other  reasons,  which  you  suppose  us  to  follow,  be- 
cause these  parcels  were  once  doubted  of  by  certain  of  the 
fathers,  it  is  a  reason  of  your  own  making,  and  therefore  you 
may  confute  it  at  your  pleasure.  But  "  if  that  be  true,  which 
Master  Wliitaker  by  a  figurative  speech  doth  more  than 
insinuate,  part  of  St  Mark's  and  St  Luke's  gospel  may  also 
be  called  in  controversy."  Why,  what  saith  M.  Whitaker? 
Marry,  "  that  he  cannot  see  by  what  right  that  which  once 
was  not  in  credit  should  by  time  win  authority."  But 
when,  I  pray  you,  was  any  part  of  St  Mark  or  St  Luke  out 
of  credit?  If  any  part  were  of  some  person  doubted  of, 
doth  it  follow  that  it  was  not  at  all  in  credit?  You  reason 
profoundly,  and  gather  very  necessarily:  as  hkewise,  that 
he  "  forgetteth  himself  in  the  very  next  lines,  admitting  St 
James'  epistle  (though  before  doubted  of)  for  canonical." 
Will  ye  say  that  St  James'  epistle  was  once  not  in  credit, 
or  not  worthy  of  credit  (for  that  is  his  plain  meaning),  be- 



cause  it  was  doubted  of,  yea,  rejected  of  some  ?  Yea,  you  say 
it  "  must  needs  be  gathered  of  his  words,"  that  we  receive  it 
but  of  courtesy,  and  so  may  refuse  it  when  it  pleaseth  us. 
Demonstrate  this  in  a  syllogism  out  of  his  words,  if  you  can, 
or  all  the  whole  rabble  of  Rheims,  if  you  be  able.  For  my 
part  I  can  but  marvel  at  your  bold  assertions,  and  abhor 
your  impudent  enforcements.  As  for  other  contradictions, 
notorious  absurdities,  dumb  blanks,  and  I  know  not  what 
other  monsters  you  feign  unto  him,  without  all  proof  or  par- 
ticular declaration,  all  wise  men  see  how  easy  a  matter  it  is 
to  rail  and  slander  in  generals ;  and  when  vou  dare  come  to 
particulars,  I  doubt  not  but  the  world  shall  see  your  vanity 
so  detected  by  M.  Whitaker  himself,  that  you  shall  have  httle 
joy  thus  insolently  to  deface  liis  godly  and  learned  writings. 
It  had  been  more  than  time  that  his  book  had  been  confuted, 
wliich  hath  been  abroad  a  year  and  a  half  almost  \  if  you  can 
with  such  facility,  by  only  noting  such  matters,  shew  that  he 
confuteth  himself.  But  somewhat  you  must  say  afar  off,  to 
save  your  credit  with  your  disciples,  to  keep  them  play  for 
the  time ;  while  with  long  study  and  great  travaU  you  are 
crowding  out  great  trifles. 



In  the  argu- 
ment bib. 
an.  1579. 

t)  irpoi 



Martin.  For  the  second  point,  which  is  not  the  gross  denial  of 
books,  but  yet  calHng  of  them  in  question,  moving  scruples  about  them, 
and  diminishing  their  authority  and  credit,  I  will  go  no  further  than 
St  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews;  which  I  will  not  ask  why  they  doubt 
of,  or  rather  think  it  not  to  be  St  Paul's,  for  they  will  tell  me,  be- 
cause it  was  once  in  doubt  (not  considering  that  it  was  in  like  man- 
ner doubted  whether  it  were  canonical,  and  yet  they  will  not  now 
deny  but  it  is  canonical) ;  but  I  must  ask  them,  and  request  them  to 
make  a  reasonable  answer,  why  in  their  English  bible  of  the  years 
1579  and  1580,  they  presume  to  leave  out  St  Paul's  name  out  of  the 
very  title  of  the  said  epistle,  which  name  is  in  the  Greek,  and  in 
Beza's  Latin  translation,  both  which  they  profess  to  follow.  See  the 
title  of  the  New  Testament,  anno  1580.  Doth  not  the  title  tell  them 
that  it  is  St  Paul's  ?  Why  seek  they  further ;  or  why  do  they  change 
the  title,  striking  out  St  Paul's  name,  if  they  meant  to  deal  simply 
and  sincerely  ?  and  what  an  heretical  peevishness  is  this,  because  Beza 
telleth  them  of  one  obscure  Greek  copy  that  hath  not  Paul's  name, 
and'  only  one,  that  they  will  rather  follow  it,  than  all  other  copies  both 
Greek  and  Latin  !  I  report  me  to  all  indifferent  men  of  common  sense, 
whether  they  do  it  not  ta  diminish  the  credit  of  the  epistle. 

['  Whitaker's  Answer  to  Campian  was  printed  in  1581.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  29 

Fulke.  Now  concerning  the  second  point,  which  is  caUing  Fulke, 
of  some  books  into  controversy,  or  moving  scruples  about  them,  l^- 
to  diminish  their  credit  or  authority,  whether  you  be  guilty 
of  that  crime  rather  than  we,  I  have  somewhat  noted  before. 
But  with  what  evidence  you  are  able  to  charge  us,  it  cometh 
now  to  be  considered:  you  will  go  no  further  than  the  epistle 
to  the  Hebrews^.  You  may  be  ashamed  to  have  gone  so  far; 
for  of  all  books  of  the  New  Testament,  there  is  none  that 
we  might  worse  spare  to  confound  your  blasphemous  heresies 
than  that  epistle,  which  is  the  very  mall  to  beat  into  powder 
the  abominable  idol  of  your  mass,  and  your  sacrilegious  priests 
hood  serving  to  the  same.  Wherefore  it  is  without  all  colour 
that  you  charge  us  to  seek  to  diminish  the  credit  of  that 
epistle.  But  you  "  will  not  ask  why  we  doubt  of,  or  rather 
think  it  not  to  be  St  Paul's,  because  we  will  tell  you,  that  it 
was  once  in  doubt."  If  you  acknowledge  that  the  author  of 
this  epistle  was  once  in  question,  you  clear  us  of  moving 
scruples  about  it,  or  calling  it  in  question,  which  was  your 
first  charge.     Let  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  other  ancient  writers,  Euseb.  itb. 

.      ,  6.  cap.  25. 

bear  that  blame,  if  it  be  blame- worthy  to  tell  what  other  men's  ^'X^J""- 
opinions  have  been  in  such  a  matter ;    some  holding  that  it  'o"*-  ^• 
was  written  by  St  Luke,  some  by  St  Barnabas,  some  by  St 
Clemens.     But  you  must  wit,  if  you  will,  that  they  which  at 
this  day  doubt  of  the  writer  thereof,  or  else  think  it  not  of 
St  Paul's   penning,   have  other  reasons  to  lead   them,    than 

P  The  argument  to  "  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrewes,"  in  the  edition  of 
the  bible  printed  at  Edinburgh,  1579,  (which  is  a  reprint  of  the  Geneva 
bible  of  1560,)  commences  thus,  as  indeed  it  does  in  the  edition  of  1557» 
and  those  printed  by  Barker,  1578,  and  1582.  "Forasmuche  as  divers, 
bothe  of  the  Greke  writers  and  Latine,  witnesse,  that  the  ■wi'iter  of 
this  epistle  for  juste  causes  wolde  not  "have  his  name  knowen,  it  were 
curiosite  of  our  parte  to  labour  muche  therein.  For  seeing  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  the  autor  thereof,  it  diminisheth  nothing  the  autoritie,  althogh 
we  knowe  not  with  what  penne  he  wrote  it.  Whether  it  were  Paul  (as 
it  is  not  like),  or  Luke,  or  Barnabas,  or  Clement,  or  some  other,  his 
chiefe  purpose  is  to  persuade  unto  the  Ebrewes,  (whereby  he  principally 
meaneth  them  that  abode  at  Jerusalem,  and  under  them  all  the  rest  of 
the  Jewes,)  that  Christ  Jesus  was  not  only  the  redemer,  but  also  that  at 
his  comming  all  ceremonies  must  have  an  end,"  &c. 

In  Coverdale's  bible,  1537,  it  bears  the  title  of  St  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews;  in  Matthew's  bible,  1537;  in  Tavemer's,  1539;  in  Day's  bible, 
1651 ;  in  the  Bishops'  bible,  1584,  and  in  Cranmer's  bible,  1562.  The  omis- 
sioil  seems  to  be  peculiar  to  the  Anglo-Genevese  Version.] 

In  Isai.  lib. 
.'1.  cap.  fi.  in 

30  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

only  because  it  was  doubted  of.  For  beside  those  reasons 
which  they  had,  which  of  old  time  doubted  of  the  writer 
thereof,  as  the  diversity  of  the  style,  and  inscription  thereof, 
and  manner  of  reasoning,  they  have  also  observed  something 
out  of  the  epistle  itself,  which  seemeth  to  argue,  that  it  was 
not  written  by  St  Paul :  as  that  in  the  beginnuig  of  the  2nd 
chapter  he  saith,  "  The  doctrine  of  salvation  was  confirmed 
to  us  by  them  that  heard  it,  after  it  was  first  spoken  by  the 
Lord  himself;"  which  seemeth  to  agree  with  the  profession  of 
St  Luke  in  the  beginning  of  his  gospel ;  whereas  St  Paul 
denieth  "  that  he  learned  his  gospel  of  men,  but  only  by  reve- 
lation of  Jesus  Christ."  Gal.  i.  12.  But  of  all  them  that 
doubt,  or  think  it  not  to  be  St  Paul's  epistle,  there  is  not 
one  that  doubteth  of  the  authority  thereof,  but  that  it  is 
equal  with  the  epistle  to  the  Komans,  or  the  gospel  of  St 
John :  although  m  the  Latin  church,  as  St  Jerome^  testifieth, 
Matt'.^iib.  5.   it  hath  been  doubted  whether  it  were  canonical.     The  cause 

cap.  ili. 

[}  Nam  et  Paulus  in  epistola  sua  quae  scribitur  ad  Hebrseos  (licet 
de  ea  multi  Latinorum  dubitent). — Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Matthaei 
cap.  26.    Opera.  Vol.  iv.  pp.  125,  126. 

Ac  primum  solvenda  est  ilia  quaestio,  quae  nobis  objici  potest :  quare 
Apostolus  Paulus  cum  Hebraeis  disputans  non  juxta  Hebraicum,  quod 
rectum  esse  cognoverat,  sed  juxta  lxx.  sit  loquutus?  Evangelistam 
Lucam  tradunt  veteres  ecclesiae  tractatores  medicine  artis  fuisse  scien- 
tissimum ;  et  magis  Graecas  literas  scisse  quam  Hebraeas.  Unde  et 
sermo  ejus  tam  in  Evangelio,  quam  in  Actibus  Apostolorum,  id  est, 
in  utroque  volumine  comptior  est,  et  secularem  redolet  eloquentiam  ; 
magisque  testimoniis  Graecis  utitur  quam  Hebraeis.  Matthaeus  autem 
et  Johannes,  quorum  alter  HebriEO,  alter  Graeco  sermone  evangelia 
texuerunt,  testimonia  de  Hebraico  proferunt :  ut  est  illud,  Ex  JEgypto 
vocavi  filium  meum.  Et,  Quoniam  Nazareus  vocabitur.  Et,  Flumina 
de  ventre  ejus  fluent  aqiue  vivce.  Et,  Videhunt  in  quern  compunxerunt, 
et  cetera  his  similia.  Pauli  quoque  idcirco  ad  Hebraeos  Epistolae  con- 
tradicitur,  quod  ad  Hebraeos  scribens  utatur  testimoniis  quae  in  Hebraeis 
voluniinibus  non  habentur.  Quod  si  aliquis  dixerit,  Hebraeos  libros 
postea  a  Judaeis  esse  falsatos,  audiat  Origenem  quid  in  octavo  volumine 
explanationum  Isaiae  huic  respondeat  quaestiunculae,  quod  nunquam 
Dominus  et  Apostoli,  qui  cetera  crimina  arguunt  in  Scribis  et  Pharisaeis, 
de  hoc  crimine  quod  erat  maximum  reticuissent.  Sin  autem  dixerint, 
post  adventum  Domini  Salvatoris  et  praedicationem  Apostolorum  libros 
Hebraeos  fuisse  falsatos,  cachinnum  tenere  non  potero,  ut  Salvator  et 
Evangelistae  et  Apostoli  ita  testimonia  protulerint,  ut  Judaei  postea  fal- 
saturi  erant. — Commentar.  Hieronymi  in  Isaite  Prophet.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  6. 
Opera.  Vol.  iii.  pp.  6-3,  64.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  81 

seemeth  to  be  the  heresy  of  the  Novatians,  which  abused  a 
text  out  of  the  6th  chapter  against  remission  of  sins  committed 
after  grace  received,  which  we  shew  was  no  sufficient  cause 
to  refuse  so  divine  an  epistle,  seeing  the  apostle  speaketh 
not  of  particular  faults,  which  are  common  to  the  faitliful 
oftentimes  every  day,  but  of  an  utter  apostasy  and  falling 
clean  away  from  the  truth  of  the  gospel  once  known  and 
professed  into  an  horrible  contempt  and  persecuting  of  the 
same.  But  we  must  "  make  you  a  reasonable  answer,  why  in 
the  EngUsh  bibles  printed  1579  and  1580,  we  presume  to 
leave  out  St  Paul's  name  out  of  the  very  title  of  the  said 
epistle ;  which  name  is  in  the  Greek  and  Beza's  Latin  trans- 
lation, wliich  we  profess  to  follow."  I  answer  without  any 
presumption,  that  that  which  is  uncertain  we  spare  to  affirm.^ 
Example  we  have,  not  only  that  ancient  Greek  copy  whereof 
Beza  speaketh,  which  leaveth  out  the  name  of  Paul,  but  also 
divers  printed  books  in  which  that  name  is  left  out.  Beside 
it  is  certain,  that  title  was  not  of  ancient  time  universally 
added.  For  St  Jerome,  in  Catalogo  scriptorum  ecclesiast.,  after 
he  hath  recited  all  the  epistles  of  St  Paul,  at  length  he  cometh 
to  this  epistle,  Epistola  autem  quce  fertur  ad  Hebrceos^  &c. 
But  the  epistle  wliich  is  called  unto  the  Hebrews,  is  not 
thought  to  be  his,  for  the  difference  of  the  style  and  speech; 
but  either  written  by  Barnabas,  as  TertulUan^  holdeth,  or  by 
Luke  the  Evangehst,  as  some  men  tliink,  or  by  Clemens,  that 
after  was  bishop  of  the  Roman  church,  whom  they  say  to 
have  ordered  and  adorned  the  sentences  of  Paul  in  his  own 
speech,  or  else  truly,  because  Paul  did  write  unto  the  Hebrews, 
and  because  of  the  envy  of  his  name  among  them  he  cut  off 
the  title  in  the  beginning  of  the  salutation.  These  things 
considered,  what  need  those  tragical  exclamations  in  so  trifling 
a  matter  ?  "  Doth  not  the  title  tell  it  is  St  Paul's  ?  why 
strike  they  out  St  Paul's  name  ?  what  an  heretical  peevishness 
is  this !"  For  lack  of  good  matter,  you  are  driven  to  loud 
clamours  against  us ;  but  I  will  even  conclude  in  your  own 

P  Exstat  enim  et  Bamabse  titulus  ad  Hebraeos,  adeo  satis  aucto- 
ritatis  viro,  ut  quern  Paulus  juxta  se  constituent  in  abstinentia  tenore: 
Aut  ego  solus  et  Barnabas  non  habemus  hoc  operandi  potestatem  1  Et 
utique  receptior  apud  ecclesias  epistola  Barnabse  illo  apocrypho  pastore 
moechorum. — Tertullian.  de  Pudicitia.  Opera,  p.  741.  edit.  Rigaltii, 
1641.  cap.  20.  edit.  Semler.  Vol.  iv.  p.  427.] 

32  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PUEFACE. 

words  :  "  I  report  me  to  all  indifferent  men  of  common  sense, 
whether  we  do  it  to  diminish  the  credit  of  the  epistle,"  which 
of  all  St  Paul's  epistles  we  might  least  miss,  when  we  come 
to  dispute  against  your  popish  sacrifice  and  sacrificing  priest- 
hood ;  or  whether  you  do  not  craftily  move  a  scruple  in  the 
minds  of  simple  persons,  to  make  them  doubt  of  the  authority 
of  that  epistle,  (whose  double  cannon-shot  you  are  not  able 
to  bear  when  it  is  thundered  out  against  you,)  imder  colour 
that  it  is  not  of  sound  credit  among  ourselves,  that  use  it 
against  you ;  which  of  all  the  lies  that  ever  Satan  invented, 
and  taught  you  to  utter,  is  one  of  the  most  abominable. 

Martin,  Martin.     I  know  very  well  that  the  authority  of  canonical  scrip- 

^  •  ture  standeth  not  upon  tlie  certainty  of  the  author;  but  yet  to  be  Paul's 

or  not  Paul's,  apostolical  or  not  apostolical,  maketh  a  great  difference 
of  credit  and  estimation.  For  what  made  St  James'  epistle  doubted  of 
sometime,  or  the  second  of  St  Peter,  and  the  rest,  but  that  they  were 
not  thought  to  be  the  epistles  of  those  apostles?  This  Luther  saw 
very  well,  when  he  denied  St  James'  epistle  to  be  James  the  apostle's 
writing.  If  titles  of  books  be  of  no  importance,  then  leave  out  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  leave  out  Paul  in  his  other  epistles  also, 
and  you  shall  much  pleasure  the  Manichees  and  other  old  heretics: 
and  if  the  titles  make  no  difference,  urge  no  more  the  title  of  the 
Apocalypse,  St  John  the  Divine,  as  though  it  were  not  St  John's  the 
Evangelist,  and  you  shall  much  displeasure  some  heretics  now-a-days. 
Briefly,  most  certain  it  is,  and  they  know  it  best  by  their  own  usual 
doings,  that  it  is  a  principal  way  to  the  discredit  of  any  book,  to  deny 
it  to  be  that  author's  under  whose  name  it  hath  been  received. 

FiiLKE,  Fulke.     If  you  know  so  well  that  the  authority  of  the 

canonical  scripture  standeth  not  upon  the  certainty  of  the  author, 
as  indeed  it  doth  not — for  the  books  of  Judges,  of  Ruth,  of 
Samuel  the  later,  of  the  Kings,  &c.  who  can  certainly  affirm 
by  whom  they  were  written? — with  what  forehead  do  you  charge 
us  to  doubt  of  the  authority  of  tliis  epistle,  because  we  report 
out  of  the  ancient  writers  the  uncertainty  of  the  author,  or 
leave  out  that  title  which  is  not  certainly  true  ?  "  But  yet 
(you  say)  to  be  Paul's  or  not  Paul's,  apostoHcal  or  not  apos- 
tolical, maketh  great  difference  of  credit  and  estimation." 
If  by  apostolical  you  mean,  of  apostolical  spirit  or  authority, 
I  agree  to  that  you  say  of  apostolical,  or  not  apostolical.  If 
you  mean  apostoHcal  that  only  which  was  written  by  some 
apostle,  you  will  make  great  difference  of  credit  and  estima- 
tion between  the  gospel  of  Mark,  Luke,  and  the  Acts  of  the 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  33 

Apostles,  from  the  gospels  of  Matthew  and  John.  But  which 
of  us,  I  pfay  you,  that  thmketh  that  this  epistle  was  not 
written  by  St  Paul,  once  doubteth  whether  it  be  not  of  apos- 
tolical spir'it  and  authority?  Which  is  manifest  by  this,  that 
both  in  preaching  and  writing  we  cite  it  thus,  the  Apostle  to 
the  Hebrews.  And  if  it  were  written  by  St  Lulve,  or  by  St 
Clement,  which  both  were  apostohc  men,  seeing  it  is  out  of 
controversy  that  it  was  written  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  is 
doubtless  apostolical,  and  differeth  not  in  credit  and  estimation 
from  those  writings  that  are  known  certainly  to  have  been 
written  by  the  apostles.  But  I  marvel  greatly  why  you  write, 
that  to  be  Paul's  or  not  Paul's  maketh  great  difference  of 
credit  and  estimation.  Those  epistles  that  are  Peter's  and 
John's  are  not  Paul's;  and  yet  I  think  there  is  no  great  dif- 
ference of  credit  and  estimation  between  them  and  Paid's. 
What  you  thuik,  I  know  not ;  but  you  write  very  suspiciously. 
You  ask  what  made  St  James'  epistle,  or  the  2nd  of  Peter 
and  the  rest,  to  be  sometimes  doubted  of,  but  that  they  were 
not  thought  to  be  the  epistles  of  those  apostles  ?  Yes,  some- 
thing else,  or  else  they  doubted  vainly  of  them,  and  without 
just  cause,  as  I  think  they  did.  But  when  there  were  two 
apostles  called  James,  he  that  doubteth  whether  the  epistle 
was  written  by  James  the  brother  of  John,  and  is  persuaded 
it  was  written  rather  by  James  the  son  of  Alpheus,  doubteth 
nothing  of  the  credit,  authority,  and  estimation  of  the  epistle. 
No  more  do  we,  which  doubt  whether  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  were  written  by  St  Paul,  seeing  we  are  persuaded 
it  was  written  either  by  St  Barnabas,  or  by  St  Luke,  or  by 
St  Clement,  as  the  ancient  writers  thought,  or  by  some  other 
of  the  apostles  or  evangehsts ;  we  make  no  question  but  that 
it  is  apostolical,  and  of  equal  authority  with  the  rest  of  the 
holy  scriptures.  But  Eusebius  denied  the  epistle  of  St  James, 
because  he  was  persuaded  that  it  was  written  by  no  apostle 
or  apostolic  man,  and  therefore  saith  plainly  that  it  is  a  bastard 
or  counterfeit ;  and  so  belike  was  Luther  deceived,  if  ever  he 
denied  it,  as  you  say  he  did.  "  But  if  titles  of  books  be  of 
no  importance,  (say  you,)  then  leave  out  Matthew,  Mark, 
John,  and  Paul  in  his  other  epistles."  AVhat  need  that,  I 
pray  you  ?  Is  there  no  difference  between  leaving  out  a  title 
whereof  there  hath  been  great  uncertainty  and  diversity  in 
God's  church,  and  which  in  some  Greek  copies  both  written 


34  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

and  printed  is  left  out ;  and  in  leaving  out  those  titles  that 
never  were  omitted,  nor  never  any  question  or  controversy 
moved  of  them  by  any  of  the  ancient  catholic  fathers  ?  But 
you  will  us  to  lu-ge  no  more  the  title  of  the  Apocalypse  of 
St  John  the  Divine,  as  though  it  were  not  St  John  the 
Evangehst's ;  and  we  shall  please  I  kiiow  not  what  heretics 
of  our  time,  except  it  be  the  papists,  whom  it  would  most 
concern  that  the  Revelation  of  St  John,  in  which  their  anti- 
christ of  Rome  is  so  plainly  described,  were  brought  out  of 
credit.  But  if  you  had  read  Beza's  preface  before  the  Apo- 
calypse, you  should  find  that  even  by  that  title  he  gathereth 
a  probable  argument,  that  it  was  written  by  John  the 
Evangelist,  because  it  is  not  like  that  this  excellent  name. 
The  Divine,  could  agree  to  any  John  in  the  apostles'  time 
so  aptly,  as  to  St  John  the  Evangehst,  beside  the  consent 
of  aU  antiquity,  ascribing  that  Revelation  to  St  John  the 
evangehst  and  apostle.  "  Last  of  aU  (you  say)  it  is  most 
certain,  and  we  know  best  by  our  usual  doings,  that  it  is  a 
principal  way  to  discredit  any  book,  to  deny  it  to  be  the 
author's  imder  whose  name  it  hath  been  received."  How 
certain  it  is  with  you,  whereof  no  man  else  but  you  can  see 
any  light  of  reason  or  necessity  of  conclusion,  I  know  not ; 
but  we  are  not  so  void  of  wit,  if  we  lacked  honesty,  that  we 
would  discredit  Paul's  epistle  by  saying  it  was  Peter's,  or 
Augustine's  sermon  by  saying  it  was  Ambrose's,  or  Chrysos- 
tom's  work  by  -saying  it  was  Basil's.  But  if  we  would  bring- 
any  book  out  of  credit  by  denying  the  author  whose  title  it 
hath  borne,  we  would  rather  entitle  it  to  some  other  writer 
of  less  credit  or  later  time,  or  by  some  other  arguments 
prove  it  unworthy  of  credit,  not  by  only  denying  it  to  be  the 
author's  under  whose  name  it  hath  been  received. 

Martin,  Martin.    But  I  come  to  the  third  point,  of  voluntary  expositions  of 

the  scripture,  that  is,  when  every  man  expoundeth  according  to  liis  error 
and  heresy.  This  needeth  no  proof,  for  we  see  it  with  our  eyes.  Look 
upon  the  Calvinists  and  Puritans  at  home ;  the  Lutherans,  Zuinglians, 
and  Calvinists  abroad.  Read  their  books  written  vehemently,  one  sect 
against  another.  Are  not  their  expositions  of  one  and  the  same  scripture 
as  diverse  and  contrary,  as  their  opinions  differ  one  from  another  ?  Let 
the  example  at  home  be,  their  controversy  about  the  distinction  of  eccle- 
siastical degrees,  archbishop,  bishop,  and  minister ;  the  example  abroad, 
their  diverse  imaginations  and  fancies  upon  these  most  sacred  words. 
Hoc  est  corpus  meum. 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  35 

Ftdke.     That  every  one  of  us  expoundeth  the  scripture  Fulke, 
voluntarily  'according  to  liis  error  or  heresy,  you  say  it  needeth  ^^' 
no  proof,  for  you  see  it  with  your  eyes.     You  have  very  clear 
sight  to  see  a  mote  in  other  men's  eyes,  but  cannot  see  a 
beam  in  your  own.     You  make  your  demonstration  by  the 
Calvinists  and  Puritans  at  home,  and  the  Lutherans,  Zuin- 
glians,  and  Calvinists  abroad;  the  one  for  the  distinction  of 
ecclesiastical  degrees,  archbishop,  bishop,  and  minister ;  the 
other  for  their   diverse   imaginations  and    fancies    of  these 
words,  Hoc  est  corpus  meum.    But  I  beseech  you,  sir,  touch- 
ing the  domestical  dissension,  what  is  the  text,  or  what  be 
the  texts  of  scripture,  upon  which  these  voluntary  expositions 
are  made,    for   the  distinction   or   confusion   of  ecclesiastical 
degrees?    K  they  had  been  as  ready  as.  Hoc  est  corpus  meum, 
they  should  have  been  set  down  as  well  as  that.     But  I  sup- 
pose they  are  yet  to  seek ;  for  that  controversy,  as  I  take  it, 
standeth  rather   in  collections    than  interpretations,   and  in 
question  whether  the  pohtical  government  of  the  church  be 
distinctly  expressed  in  the  scripture  or  no.     As  for  the  con- 
tention abroad,  I  confess  to  stand  a  great  part  in  exposition 
of  that    text,  wherein  although  the   one   part   doth  err,  is 
that  a  sufficient  cause  to  condemn  them  both?     The  church 
of  Africa  and  the  church  of  Rome,  and  the  two  principal 
lights  of  them  both,  Cyprian  and  Cornelius,  dissented  about 
rebaptizino-  them  that  were  baptized  of  heretics.     The  Afri-  cypnanus, 

r  IS  1  et  all!  m 

cans,  not  in  one  text  only,  but  in  the  exposition  of  many,  ^ricano. 
differed  from  the  Romans,  and  from  the  truth ;  yet  it  were 
hard  to  condemn  them  both  for  heretics,  and  least  of  all 
them  that  held  the  truth.  St  Augustine  and  St  Jerome^ 
dissented  about  a  text  of  St  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  of  Peter's 
dissembling,  as  their  contrary  epistles  do  testify.  The  truth 
was  of  St  Augustine's  side ;  yet  was  not  the  other  an  heretic, 
following  a  wrong  interpretation.  And  to  come  nearer  home 
unto  you,  the  Dominican  and  Franciscan  friars  were  at 
daggers  drawing,  as  we  say,  yea,  at  most  sharp  and  bitter 
contention  between  themselves,  and  all  the  popish  church 
was  divided  about  their  brawling,  concerning  the  conception 

\}  Augustin.  ad  Hieron.  Epist.  xxviii.  Vol.  ii.  p.  45.  and  Vol.  xi.  p.  85. 
Hierouymus  ad  Augustin.  Epist.  lxxvi.  de  Petro  rej^rehenso  a  Paulo. 
Opera,  Vol.  iv.  pars  2.  p.  629.  edit.  Benedict.  1706.  The  text  was  Gal. 
ii.  14.] 


36  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

of  the  virgin  Mary,  whether  she  were  conceived  in  sin,  or 
no ;  where  many  texts  of  scripture  must  needs  receive  volun- 
tary expositions,  if  not  of  both  parts,  yet  at  the  least  of 
one  part :  which  of  these  will  you  say  were  heretics  ?  If 
you  say  neither  of  both,  then  must  you  have  stronger 
reasons  to  prove  us  all  heretics,  than  voluntary  expositions, 
where  parties  be  in  diverse  opinions,  especially  in  matters 
not  overthrowing  the  foundation  of  christian  religion.  And 
when  you  have  gathered  the  most  voluntary  expositions  you 
can  find,  yet  shall  you  find  none  so  gross,  so  absurd,  so  im- 
pertinent, as  you  papists  have  coined  for  maintenance  of 
your  errors  and  heresies,  of  which  you  yourself  are  ashamed, 
though  otherwise  you  have  iron  foreheads  and  brasen  faces. 
A  few  examples  among  a  great  many  shall  suffice.  "  God 
made  man  according  to  his  own  image :"  that  is  to  say,  we 
must  have  images  in  the  church.  "  No  man  lighteth  a  candle 
and  putteth  it  under  a  bushel :"  the  meaning  is,  that  images 
must  be  set  upon  the  altar.  "  God  made  two  great  lights, 
the  sun  and  the  moon :"  that  is,  the  pope  to  be  above  the 
emperor'.  "  Behold,  here  are  two  swords:"  that  is,  the  pope 
hath  power  of  both  the  swords.  "  Put  on  the  whole  armour 
of  God :"  that  is,  the  priest  must  put  on  all  his  vestments, 
before  he  say  mass.  "  I  am  become  as  sounding  brass,  or 
as  a  tinkling  cymbal :"  that  is,  the  bells  in  the  steeple  sig- 
nify preacliing  of  God's  word.  I  might  fill  many  leaves, 
yea,  a  whole  book,  of  such  popish  expositions,  as  the  papists 
in  our  days  dare  not  for  shame  abide  by. 

Martin  Martin.    And  if  you  will  yet  have  a  further  demonstration,  this  one 

14.  may  suffice  for  all.     They  reject  councils  and  fathers,  and  the  catholic 

church's  interpretation,  unless  it  be  agreeable  to  God's  word;  and  whether 

it  be  agreeable  or  no,  that  Luther  shall  judge  for  the  Lutherans,  Calvin 

for  the  Calvinists,  Cartwright  for  the  Puritans,  and  another  for  the 

whitak.        brethren  of  love  :  briefly,  themselves  will  be  judges  both  of  councils  and 

120.  ^"         fathers,  whether  they  expound  the  scriptures  well  or  no ;  and  every  youth 

among  them,  upon  confidence  of  his  spirit  and  knowledge,  will  saucily 

control  not  only  one,  but  all  the  fathers  consenting  together,  if  it  be 

against  that  which  they  imagine  to  be  the  truth. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.      We  had  need  of  a  better  demonstration  than  the 

14.  former,  by  whicli  you  yourselves  are  proved  heretics,  rather 

{}  Innocent  IIL  who  excommunicated  king  John,  thus  mterpreted 
Gen.  i.  16,  in  a  letter  he  addressed  to  the  English  monarch.  See  Marsh's 
Lectures,  pp.  369,  370.3 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  37 

than  we.  But  let  us  see  how  handsomely  you  begin.  "  They 
reject  (say  you)  councils  and  fathers,  and  the  catholic  church's 
interpretation,  unless  it  be  agreeable  to  God's  word."  Thus 
far  you  say  well.  We  do  reject  not  only  those  that  you 
name,  but  even  an  angel  from  heaven,  except  his  message 
be  agreeable  to  God's  word.  But  all  the  rest  that  you  as- 
sume, to  the  end  of  this  section,  is  a  stark  staring  Ue,  ex- 
cept that  "you  say  of  H.  N.^  for  the  bretlu'en  of  love,  which 
are  more  like  to  you  than  to  us.  For  neither  Luther,  nor 
Calvin,  nor  Cartwright  is  judge  among  us,  whether  any  thing 
be  agreeable  to  the  word  of  God ;  but  whatsoever  any  of 
them  do  say,  it  is  examined  and  tried  by  the  scriptures. 
And  the  scriptures  themselves,  where  they  are  so  obscure, 
that  neither  by  common  sense,  knowledge  of  the  original 
tongue,  grammar,  rhetoric,  logic,  history,  nor  any  other  human 
knowledge,  nor  judgment  of  any  writers,  old  or  new,  the 
certain  understanding  can  be  found  out,  they  are  either  ex- 
poimded  by  conference  of  other  plainer  texts  of  scripture, 
according  to  the  analogy  of  faith ;  or  else  they  remain  still 
in  obscurity,  until  it  shall  please  God  to  reveal  a  more  clear 
knowledge  of  them.  But  none  so  like  the  family  of  love  as 
you  papists  are,  which  reject  councils,  fathers,  interpretation 
of  the  most  ancient  catholic  church,  yea,  and  manifest  scrip- 
ture itself,  except  it  be  agreeable  to  the  judgment  of  your 
P.  M.  Poniifex  Max.  the  pope,  as  those  familiar  devils  submit 
all  things  to  the  sentence  and  authority  of  their  H.  N. 
Shame  you  nothing  therefore  to  quote  Whitaker^  pp.  17  and 
120,  as  though  he  affirmed,  that  we  ourselves  wiU  be  judges 
both  of  councils  and  fathers,  whether  they  expound  the 
scriptures  well  or  no  ?  because  he  writeth  (percase),  that  we 
ought  to  examine  all  men's  writings  by  the  word  of  God. 
Doth  the  apostle  make  every  man  judge  of  all  things,  when 
he  willeth  every  man  to  examine  aU  things,  and  to  hold  that 
which  is  good?  If  any  youth,  upon  confidence  of  liis  wit 
or  knowledge,  presume  too  much  m  divine  matters,  we  count 
it  rashness.  But  that  any  youth  among  us,  upon  confidence 
of  his  spirit,  wUl  saucily  control  all  the  fathers  consenting 
together  against  his  fantasy,  except  it  be  some  schismatic 
or  heretic,  that  is  cast  out  from  amongst  us,  I  do  utterly 

\^  Henry  Nicholas.    Vid.  Cardwell's  Documentary  Annals,  Vol.  i. 
p.  392.] 

P  Ad  Rationes  Campiani.  edit.  1581.] 

38  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

deny  ;  neither  are  you  able  to  prove  it  of  any  that  is  allowed 
among  us. 

Martin,  Martin.    Whereupon  it  riseth,  that  one  of  them  defendeth  tliis  as 

iwd      101     ^^^y  ^^^^  ^^^^  ^^  Luther,  "  That  he  esteemed  not  the  worth  of  a  rush  a 

thousand  Augustines,  Cyprians,  churches,  against  himself."  And  another 

very  finely  and  figuratively  (as  he  thought),  against  the  holy  doctor  and 

Praf.  ad  6.1    martyr  St  Cyprian,  affirming  that  the  church  of  Rome  cannot  en-  in  faith, 

Oxon.'  p.  25.    saith  thus :  "  Pardon  me,  Cyprian,  I  would  gladly  believe  thee,  but  that 

believing  thee  I  should  not  believe  the  gospel."    This  is  that  which  S. 

Lib.  Con-      Aujnistine  saith  of  the  like  men :  Dulcissime  vanos  esse,  non  peritos,  sed 

fess.  1.  cap.  '^  9        A     J  T 

14.  lib.  7.       perituros,  nee  tarn  disertos  in  errore,  quam  desertos  a  veritate  .    And  1 
^'    '         think,  verily,  that  not  only  we,  but  the  wiser  men  among  themselves, 
cicer.  de        smile  at  such  eloquence,  or  pity  it,  saying  this  or  the  like  most  truly : 
Prodierunt  oratores  novi,  stulti  adokscentuli. 

FuLKE,  Fulhe.  Why  should  you  not,  at  your  plea&Tire,  upon  your 

false  assumption  general  infer  one  or  two  slanders  particular  ? 
Mr  Wliitaker  defendeth  that  it  was  well  said  of  Luther,  "  That 
he  esteemeth  not  the  worth  of  a  rush  a  thousand  Augustines, 
Cyprians,  churches,  against  liimself."  Would  God  that  every 
papist  would  read  liis  own  words  in  the  place  by  you  quoted, 
that  he  might  see  your  impudent  forgery!  For  I  do  hope 
there  is  no  Christian  that  will  imagine,  that  either  Luther 
would  so  speak,  or  any  man  of  honesty  defend  him,  so  speak- 
ing. For  Luther  was  not  so  senseless,  to  oppose  his  own. 
person,  but  the  truth  of  his  cause,  grounded  upon  the  holy 
scriptures,  not  only  agamst  one  thousand  of  men  holding  the 
contrary,  but  even  against  ten  thousand  of  angels,  if  they 
should  oppose  themselves  against  the  truth  of  God.  But  I 
am  to  blame  to  deal  so  much  in  Mr  Whitaker's  cause,  who, 
ere  it  be  long,  will  display  the  falsehood  of  Gregory  Martin, 
in  a  Latin  writing,  to  his  great  ignominy. 

The  next  cavil  is  upon  Mr  Rainolds'  words,  in  his  preface 
to  his  Six  Positions,  disputed  upon  at  Oxford,  where  against 
Cyprian,  affirming  that  the  church  of  Rome  cannot  err  in 
faith,  he  saith,  "  Pardon  me,  Cyprian,  I  would  gladly  beheve 
thee,  but  that  in  beheving  thee    I   should  not  beheve  the 

\}  Sex  Theses  de  S.  Scriptura  et  Ecclesia.  Rupellae.  1586,  by  John 

P  This  is-  garbled  fvom  two  or  more  passages :  Nam  et  Homerus, 
peritus  texere  tales  fabellas,  et  dulcissime  vanus  est,  &c.  Confess,  i.  14. 
p.  146.  edit.  Bened.  Garriebam  plane  quasi  peritus,  et  nisi  in  Christo 
Salvatore  nostro  viam  tuam  quaererem,  non  peritus,  sed  periturus  essem. 
lb.  vii.  20.  p.  247.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  39 

gospel."  These  words  you  confess  that  he  spake  figuratively 
and  finely,  as  he  thought;  but  that  he  used  the  figures  of 
irony  and  concession,  you  will  not  acknowledge,  but  all  other 
men  may  easily  see.  For  first,  he  no  where  granteth  that  St 
Cyprian  affirmeth,  that  the  church  of  Rome  cannot  err  in 
faith.  But  immediately  before  the  words  by  you  translated, 
after  he  had  proved  out  of  the  eleventh  to  the  Romans,  that 
the  particular  church  of  Rome  may  be  cut  off,  as  well  as  the 
church  of  the  Israehtes,  which  were  the  natural  branches, 
he  asks  the  question,  Quid  f  et  Cypriano  seem  est  msum  ? 
"  What  ?  and  did  it  seem  otherwise  to  Cyprian  ?  Pardon  me, 
Cyprian,  &c."  His  meaning  is  plain,  that  Cyprian  thought 
not  otherwise  than  St  Paul  hath  written ;  or  if  he  did,  it  was 
lawful  to  dissent  from  Cyprian.  As  a  httle  after  he  saith, 
Quare  si  Bomanam  ecclesiam  errare  non  posse,  S^c.  Where- 
fore, if  Cyprian  thought  that  the  church  of  Rome  could  not 
err  in  that  point,  by  the  sentence  of  the  papists  he  himself 
is  to  be  condemned  of  error ;  for  divers  papists  whom  he 
nameth,  confess  that  every  particular  church  may  err ;  and 
Verratus,  one  of  them,  affirmeth  that  the  church  of  Rome  is 
a  particular  church,  wliich  the  rest  cannot  deny.  And  indeed 
that  which  Cyprian  writeth,  is  about  certain  runagate  here- 
tics, that,  flying  out  of  the  church  of  Carthage,  sought  to  be 
received  of  the  particular  church  of  Rome.  All  this  whUe 
here  is  no  grant  that  Cyprian  affirmeth,  that  the  church  of 
Rome  cannot  err  in  faith.  And  if  Cyprian  had  so  affirmed 
contrary  to  the  scripture,  it  might  have  been  justly  replied 
unto  him,  which  St  Augustine  saith  Avhen  he  was  pressed  with 
his  authority.  Contra  Crescon.,  Mb.  2,  cap.  31.  Nos  nullam 
Cypriano  facimus  injuriam:  "We  do  Cyprian  no  wrong,"  when 
we  distinguish  any  writings  of  his  from  the  canonical  autho- 
rity of  the  divine  scriptures.  And  in  truth  the  words  which 
Mr  Rainolds  before  cited  out  of  St  Cyprian,  lib.  1,  ep.  3,  ad 
Cornel.,  are  spoken  of  no  matter  of  faith,  but  in  a  matter  of 
discipline.  Neither  doth  Cyprian  say  that  the  church  of  Rome 
cannot  err  in  faith,  but  that  those  heretics  which  brought 
letters  from  schismatics  and  profane  persons,  did  not  consider 
that  they  are  Romans,  whose  faith  is  praised  by  the  com- 
mendation or  preaching  of  the  apostle,  to  whom  perfidia, 
"  falsehood,  or  false  dealing,"  can  have  none  access^ :  meaning 

P  Post  ista  adhuc  insuper  Pseudo-episcopo  sibi  ab  haereticis  consti- 
tuto,  navigare  audent,  et  ad  Petri  cathedram  atque  ad  ecclesiam  princi- 

40  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

that  the  Romans,  so  long  as  they  continue  in  that  faith  which 
was  praised  by  the  apostle,  cannot  join  with  heretics  and 
schismatics,  that  are  cast  out  of  other  catholic  churches.  For 
that  he  could  not  mean  that  the  pope  or  church  of  Rome 
cannot  err  in  faith  (as  the  papists  affirm),  it  is  manifest,  for 
that  in  a  question  of  religion,  he  dissented  both  from  the 
bishop  and  church  of  Rome,  as  all  learned  men  know  he  did, 
which  he  would  never  have  done,  if  he  had  believed  they  could 
not  err.  And  that  his  meaning  was  not  that  the  bishop  of 
Rome  could  not  err  in  matters  of  discipline,  it  is  manifest  in 
the  next  epistle,  where  he  complaineth,  that  Basihdes,  a 
wicked  man,  "after  his  crimes  were  detected,  and  his  conscience 
made  bare  by  his  own  confession,  went  to  Rome,  and  deceived 
our  fellow-bishop,  Stephanus,  dwelling  far  oif,  and  being  igno- 
rant of  the  case,  so  that  he  sought  ambitiously  to  be  unjustly 
restored  into  the  bishopric  from  whence  he  was  justly  deposed'." 
These  things  prove,  that  St  Cyprian  thought  it  no  impossible 
thing  for  the  bishops  and  church  of  Rome  to  err  in  faith 
or  government.  Wherefore  that  you  cite  out  of  Augustine 
agreeth  best  unto  yourself,  and  such  as  you  are,  who  employ 
all  your  eloquence  and  utterance  to  set  forth  lies  and  slanders. 
Last  of  all,  when  you  have  nothing  else  to  disgrace  those 
grave  and  learned  writers,  you  would  make  them,  by  abusing 
a  piece  of  Tully,  contemptible  for  their  youth  among  such 
as  know  them  not ;  who  if  they  wanted  half  a  score  years 
apiece  of  that  ripe  and  well-seasoned  age  they  have,  yet 
with  those  gifts  of  godhness  and  learning,  which  God  hath  in 
great  measure  bestowed  upon  them,  they  were  worthy  to  be 
reverenced.  So  that  venomous  traitor,  which  writeth  of  the 
persecution  of  the  papists,  maketh  me  a  very  young  man,  and 

palem,  unde  unitas  sacerdotalis  exorta  est,  a  schismaticis  et  prophanis 
literas  ferre ;  nee  cogitare  eos  esse  Romanos,  quorum  fides  apostolo  prae- 
dicante  laudata  est,  ad  quos  perfidia  non  potest  habere  accessum.  Cypri- 
ani  Opera.  Par.  1609.  4to.  fol.  7.  hodie  Epist.  3.5.] 

[}  Quod  et  apud  vos  factum  videmus  in  Sabini  coUegse  nostri  ordi- 
natione,  ut  de  universae  fratemitatis  suffragio  et  de  episcoporum  qui  in 
praesentia  convenerant,  quique  de  eo  ad  vos  literas  fecerant,  judicio 
episcopatus  ei  deferretur,  et  manus  ei  in  locum  Basilidis  imponeretur. 
Nee  rescrndere  ordinationem  jure  perfeetam  potest,  quod  Basilides,  post 
crimina  sua  detecta  et  conseientiara  etiam  propria  confessione  nudatam, 
Romam  pergens  Stephanum  collegam  nostrum  longe  positum  et  gestae 
rei  ac  veritatis  ignarum  fefellit,  ut  cxambiret  reponi  se  injuste  in  epis- 
copatum  de  quo  fuerat  jure  depositus. — Cypriani  Epistola  lxviii.  edit. 
Baluzii.  1706.  p.  119.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  41 

therefore  contemned  of  the  ancient  fathers  at  Wisbech ;  and 
yet  I  can 'easily  prove  that  I  was  of  lawful  age,  if  more  than 
twice  one-and-twenty  years  will  serve,  before  ever  I  saw 
Wisbech  castle. 

Martin.    The  fourth  pomt  is,  of  picking  quarrels  to  the  veiy  original  Mabtin, 
text :  for  alter  and  change  it  I  hope  they  shall  not  be  able  in  this  watch-    "• 
ful  world  of  most  vigilant  catholics.    But  what  they  would  do,  if  all 
bibles  were  only  in  their  hands  and  at  their  commandment,  guess  by 
this :  that  Beza,  against  the  evidence  of  aU  copies,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  Beza,  the 
(in  his  Annotations  upon  the  New  Testament,  set  forth  in  the  year  1556,)  Geneva, 
thinketh  tt^wtoc  is  more  than  should  be  in  the  text  Matt,  x.,  and  to  text  of 

»  /  T  ••  1  -  '      ^       «  ••  1        o        scripture. 

eK'^vvonevov,   Luc.  xxu.,   and   irpoa-Kwetv    auToi?,  Acts  vu. :    the  lirst 

against  Peter's  supremacy;   the  second,  against  the  real  presence  of 

Christ's  blood  in  the  blessed  sacrament;  the  third,  against  the  making 

of  whatsoever  images,  whether  they  be  adored  or  no.    Thus  you  see,  how . 

the  mouse  of  Geneva  (as  I  told  you  before  of  Marcion  the  mouse  of 

Pontus)  nibbleth  and  gnaweth  about  it,  though  he  cannot  bite  it  off 


Fulke.  In  this  point  you  do  notliing  but  pick  quarrels,  see-  Fulke, 
ing  you  confess  that  neither  they  have,  nor  can  alter  or  change  ^^* 
any  thing  of  the  original  text.  If  Beza  express  his  conjecture 
upon  some  ground  or  similitude  of  I'eason,  that  ttjowtos  in 
Matthew  x.,  to  eK-^woixevov,  Luke  xxii.,  and  irpooKwelv  av- 
Tol^,  Acts  vii.,  might  perhaps  be  added  to  the  text  out  of  the 
margin  or  otherwise,  and  yet  doth  not  precisely  affirm  it,  but 
leave  it  to  judgment  and  trial  of  ancient  copies,  if  any  shall 
be  found  to  favour  his  conjecture ;  what  hath  he  like  to  the 
mouse  of  Pontus,  Marcion,  which  altered  and  corrupted  the 
text?  You  say  he  nibbleth  and  gnaweth  about  it,  though 
he  cannot  bite  it  off  altogether :  and  for  what  advantage  ? 
forsooth,  because  the  first  word  maketh  for  Peter's  supre- 
macy, a  poor  supremacy  that  Peter  can  gain  in  that  he  is 
named  the  first  in  the  catalogue  of  the  apostles,  which  is 
but  a  primacy  of  order,  not  of  honour  ;  or,  as  Ambrose-  saith,  Deincam. 
a  primacy  of  confession,  not  of  honoiu*,  of  faith,  not  of  de- 
gree. The  second  word  you  say  is  against  the  real  presence 
of  Christ's  blood  in  the  blessed  sacrament.     You  are  a  perilous 

P  Hie  ergo  qui  ante  reticebat,  ut  doceret  nos  quod  impiorum  nee 
verbupi  debeamus  iterare ;  hie,  inquam,  ubi  audivit,  *  Fos  autem  quid 
me  dicitis?  statim  loci  non  immemor  sui,  primatum  egit;  primatum 
confessionis  utique,  non  honoris;  primatum  fidei,  non  ordinis. — Am- 
brosii  de  Incam.  Domini  Liber  unus.  cap.  4.  Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  710. 
edit.  Bened.  Paris.  1690.] 

*  Matt.  xvi.  15. 

42  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

cat,  that  can  spy  a  mouse  gnawing  at  the  real  presence,  which 
none  of  the  ancient  fathers,  or  late  writers  before  these  days, 
could  find  in  those  words.  And  as  for  making  of  images, 
who  doth  forbid,  except  it  be  in  any  use  of  religion,  which 
God  doth  forbid  ui  the  second  commandment  of  the  first  table  ? 
And  where  you  will  have  men  to  guess  what  we  would  do  if 
all  bibles  were  only  in  our  hands,  by  this  example  of  Beza's 
conjectures ;  I  wish  men  rather  to  consider  what  the  Romish 
rats  were  like  to  do  in  that  case,  which  in  their  translation 
of  the  ten  commandments  for  the  people's  instruction  have 
clean  gnawed  out  the  second  commandment ;  and  because  they 
cannot  bite  it  clean  out  of  the  bible,  they  seek  all  shifts  to 
hide  it  under  the  first  commandment.  Finally,  whether  Lin- 
danus  and  you  do  pick  quarrels  against  all  the  evidence  of 
all  Greek  copies,  I  refer  me  to  your  fourth  section,  where  out 
of  Lindanus  you  falsely  affirm,  that  certain  of  Marcion's  cor- 
ruptions remain  in  the  Greek  text  until  this  day. 

Martin,  Martin.    He  doth  the  like  in  sundry  places,  which  you  may  see  in 

^^'  his  Annotations,  Acts  vii.  16 ;  where  he  is  saucy  against  all  copies,  Greek 

and  Latin,  to  pronounce  corruption,  corruption,  avouching  and  endeavour- 
ing to  prove  that  it  must  be  so,  and  that  with  these  words,  "  To  what  pur- 
pose should  the  Holy  Ghost,  or  Luke,  add  this  1"  Acts  viii.  26.  But  because 
those  places  concern  no  controversy,  I  say  no  more  but  that  he  biteth  at 
the  text,  and  would  change  it  according  to  his  imagination,  if  he  might ; 
which  is  too  proud  an  enterprise  for  Beza,  and  small  reverence  of  the 
holy  scriptures,  so  to  call  the  very  text  into  controversy,  that  whatsoever 
pleaseth  not  him,  crept  out  of  the  margin  into  the  text,  which  is  his  com- 
mon and  almost  his  only  conjecture. 

FuLKE,  Fulhe.  Where  Beza  noteth  corruption  in  places  that  con- 

^^'  cern  no  controversy,  it  appeareth  that  without  partiality  he 

desireth  to  restore  the  text  to  sincerity.  And  yet  he  is 
charged  of  you  with  pride  and  sauciness.  Why  more,  I  pray 
you,  than  Lindanus,  of  whom  you  learned  to  prattle  so  much 
of  the  mouse  of  Pontus  ?  Which,  Mb.  2,  de  optim.  gen.  inter- 
pret, scripturas,  hath  divers  chapters  of  the  defect  of  the 
Greek  text,  of  the  redundance,  and  of  the  corruption  thereof. 
If  Lindanus  might  do  this  with  modesty,  and  desire  to  find  out 
the  truth  (as  I  think  he  did),  why  may  not  an  indifferent 
reader  judge  the  like  of  Beza  in  his  doings  ?  As  for  creepmg 
out  of  the  margin  into  the  text,  which  you  say  is  his  common 
and  almost  only  conjecture,  why  may  it  not  come  to  pass  in 
writing  out  of  the  books  of  the  scripture,  as  it  hath  in  other 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  43 

writings  of  other  authors  ?  And  that  either  by  that  means, 
or  by  some  other  means,  corruption  hath  happened  to  all 
copies  that  at  tliis  day  are  extant,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  in 
naming  Jeremiah  for  Zechariah,  Matthew  xxvii.,  who  is  so 
blind  that  he  will  not  see?  Yet  the  ordinary  Gloss  confesseth, 
that  there  were  divers  copies  in  times  past,  in  which  the 
name  of  Jeremiah  was  not,  but  the  word  prophet  generally. 
Likewise  in  the  vulgar  Latin  text,  in  the  beginning  of  St 
Mark's  gospel,  Isaiah  is  cited  for  that  wliich  is  written  in 
Malachf,  and  some  Greek  copies  have  the  same,  from  whence 
it  is  like  the  Latin  translation  received  that  error :  but 
the  more  part  of  best  Greek  copies  leave  out  the  name  of 
Isaiah.  How  these  corruptions  should  come  into  the  text, 
except  it  be  out  of  the  margin,  if  you  can  find  a  better  con- 
jecture, we  shall  be  content  with  more  patience  to  hear  you, 
than  you  can  abide  to  hear  Beza. 

Martin.     He  biteth  sore  at  the  word  civaroXt],  Luke  i.  78,  and  will  Martin, 
not  translate  that,  but  the  Hebrew  word  of  the  Old  Testament;  but  at  ^^• 
ft)S?i/a?,  Acts  ii.  24,  much  more,  and  at  efSoajju^KovTa  TreVre,  Acts  vii.    -" 
14,  exceedingly:  but  yet,  after  he  hath  said  aU  that  he  could  against  it,  ^"jgl^'- 
he  concludeth,  that  he  durst  not,  and  that  he  had  a  conscience,  upon  rovKaivdi/. 
conjecture  to  change  any  thing.    And  therefore  all  this  is  gnawing  only.  ciietVthe"' 
But  in  the  third  of  Luke  he  maketh  no  conscience  at  aU,  to  leave  out  ^f  ^^g  ^g^ 
these  words,  verse  36,  Qui  fuit  Cainan,  not  only  in  his  own  translation,  ^tth'the"He 
but  in  the  vulgar  Latin  which  is  joined  therewith,  saying  in  his  Annota-  [^^  ofS^t"*^ 
tions,  Non  dubitavimus  expungere;  that  is,  "We  doubted  not  to  put  it  putting'out 
out :   and  why  ?  "  By  the  authority  of  Moses,  Gen.  xi. :"  whereby  he  signi-  text  so  much 
fieth,  that  it  is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  Gen.  xi.,  where  this  posterity  of  Shem  him. 
is  reckoned ;  and  so,  to  maintain  the  Hebrew  verity  (as  they  call  it)  in 
the  Old  Testament,  he  careth  not  what  become  of  the  Greek  in  the  New 
Testament,  which  yet  at  other  times,  against  the  vulgar  Latin  text,  they 
call  the  Greek  verity,  and  the  pure  fountain,  and  that  text  whereby  all 
translations  must  be  tried. 

Fulke.  His  biting  (as  you  call  it)  at  the  Avord  dvaToXrj  Fulke, 
Luke  i.,  and  lo^lva^,  Acts  ii.,  and  el^Sofx^Koura  irevre,  Acts  vii.,  ^^^ 
seeing  they  concern  no  controversy,  might  have  been  contained 
in  the  section  next  before,  especially  seeing  you  confess  he  saith 
he  durst  not,  and  that  he  had  a  conscience,  upon  conjecture 
to  change  anytliing.  But  in  the  third  of  Luke,  verse  36,  he 
maketh  no  conscience  at  all  to  leave  out  the  words.  Qui  fuit 
Cainan,  saying  in  liis  Annotations  that  he  doubted  not  to 
put  it  out  by  authority  of  Moses,  Genesis  xi. ;  a  sore  charge 
to  diminish  any  part  of  the  holy  scripture.     But  if  he  have 

44)  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

only  corrected  an  error  of  the  scribe,  wliich  by  all  likelihood 
took  upon  him  to  add  unto  St  Luke  out  of  the  Greek  text 
of  the  LXX.  that  wliich  is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  verily,  I  see 
not  what  oifence  he  hath  committed.  For,  first,  he  can  mean 
no  fraud  in  concealing  those  words,  whereof  he  doth  admonish 
the  reader,  and  of  the  cause  of  his  leaving  them  out.  Se- 
condly, he  winneth  no  advantage  against  his  adversaries,  or 
to  his  own  cause,  by  omitting  to  say,  that  Sala  was  the  son  of 
Cainan,  whom  Moses  affirmeth  to  be  the  son  of  Arphaxad. 
And  seeing  Moses,  Genesis  xi.,  hath  no  such  Cainan  the  son  of 
Arphaxad,  it  is  not  like  that  St  Luke,  who  borrowed  that 
part  of  his  genealogy  out  of  Moses,  would  add  anything  which 
Moses  had  omitted.  But  you  say  that  Beza,  to  maintain  the 
Hebrew  verity  of  the  Old  Testament,  careth  not  what  become 
of  the  Greek  in  the  New  Testament.  You  should  have  made 
your  antitheton  more  full  (wherein  it  seemeth  you  pleased 
yourself  not  a  little),  if  you  had  said  that  Beza,  to  maintain 
the  Hebrew  verity  of  the  Old  Testament,  careth  not  what 
becometh  of  the  Greek  corruption  in  the  New  Testament ; 
and  so  you  should  have  spoken  both  more  eloquently  and 
more  truly.  But  at  other  times  (you  say),  against  the  vulgar 
Latin  text,  they  call  the  Greek  text  the  Greek  verity,  and 
the  pure  fountain,  and  that  whereby  all  translations  must  be 
tried.  We  say  indeed,  that  by  the  Greek  text  of  the  New 
Testament  all  translations  of  the  New  Testament  must  be 
tried ;  but  we  mean  not  by  every  corruption  that  is  in  any 
Greek  copy  of  the  New  Testament,  and  much  less  that  the 
Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament  should  be  reformed  after  the 
Greek  of  the  New,  where  it  is  uncorrupted ;  and  least  of  all, 
where  any  copy  is  guilty  of  a  manifest  error,  as  in  this  place 
now  in  question, 

Martin,  Martin.    But  if  he  have  no  other  way  to  reconcile  both  Testaments, 

but  by  striking  out  in  the  Greek  of  the  New  all  that  agreeth  not  with 
the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament,  then  let  him  alter  and  change  so 
many  words  of  our  Saviour  himself,  of  the  evangelists,  and  of  the  apostles, 
as  are  cited  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  are  not  in  Hebrew.  Which 
places  they  know  are  very  many,  and  when  need  is,  they  shall  be  gathered 
to  their  hands.     Let  him  strike  out  (Matt.  xiii.  14,  15,  and  Acts  xxviii. 

isai.  vi.  9,      26,  27)  the  words  of  our  Saviour  and  St  Paul,  cited  out  of  Isaiah,  because 


Gal.  iii.  13.  they  are  far  otherwise  in  the  Hebrew.  Strike  out  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Tras  Kpefxa-  Qajatiaus  thesc  words,  "  upon  a  tree,"  because  in  the  Hebrew  it  is  only 
^v\ov.  thus :  "  Cursed  is  he  that  is  hanged."  Deut.  xxi.  in  fine.  Yea,  strike 
'"'''"  out  of  David's  Psalms  that  which  concerneth  our  redemption  upon  the 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  45 

cross  much  nearer,  "They  have  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet,"  (Psalm 
xxi.)  because-  in  the  Hebrew  there  is  no  such  thing.     Let  them  control 
the  apostle  (Eph.  iv.)  for  saying,  dedit,  "  he  gave  gifts,"  because  it  is  eXa^es. 
both  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  (Psalm  Ixvii.)  accepisti,  "  thou  tookest  ^f?^ 
gifts,"  and  (Heb.  x.)  for  corpus  aptasti  let  them  put  aures  perforasti,  be-  Q'^.l'* 
cause  it  is  so  in  the  Hebrew,  (Psalm  xl.)     To  be  short,  if  aU  must  be  "b  nnD 
reformed  according  to  the  Hebrew,  why  doth  he  not  in  St  Stephen's 
sermon  cut  off  the  number  of  five  souls  from  seventy-five,  because  it  is 
not  in  the  Hebrew  ? 

FulJce.  If  you  had  read  Beza's  works  as  diligently  to  learn  Fulke, 
the  truth  out  of  them,  as  you  have  pried  here  and  there 
busily  how  to  espy  some  fault  or  error  in  them,  you  should 
easily  have  found  that  he  hath  other  ways  to  reconcile  both 
the  Testaments,  and  the  difference  that  seemeth  to  be  in  the 
allegations,  than  by  striking  out  of  the  Greek  in  the  New  , 
all  that  agreeth  not  with  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament. 
And  therefore  vainly    you  bid  him  alter  so   many  words  as 
are  cited  in  the  New  Testament  out  of  the  Old,  which  are  not 
in  the  Hebrew,  and  strike  out  of  Matthew  xiii.  14,  15,  and 
Acts  xxviii.   26,  27,  the  words  of  our  Saviour  and  St  Paid, 
cited  out  of  Isaiah,  because  they  are  otherwise  in  the  He- 
brew.    Beza  knoweth  that  Christ  and  his  apostles  always  keep 
the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  verity,  although  they  do  not  always 
rehearse  the  very  words.      But  whereas  you  bid  him  out  of 
Gal.  iii.   13,  strike  out  these  words  "upon  a  tree,"  because 
in  the  Hebrew  it  is  only  thus,   "Cui'sed  is  he  that  is  hanged;" 
you  shew  either  gross  ignorance  or  intolerable  frowardness, 
for  these  words  "  upon  a  tree"  are  in  that  verse,  and  in  the 
next  before.     For  thus  the  Hebrew  text  is  :  "  22.  When  there  w'^y 
shall  be  in  any  person  a  sin  to  be  adjudged  to  death,  and  he  X^rr'^v 
shall  be  delivered  to  death,  if  thou  shalt  hang  him  upon  a 
tree :   23.  Let  not  his  carcase  tarry  all  night  upon  that  tree, 
but  in  any  case  thou  shalt  bury  him  the  same  day,  for  accursed 
to  God  is  he  that  is  hanged."     The  word  "tree"  being  twice 
named  before,   who  would  be  so  mad  to  say,  that  St  Paul 
hath  added  it  beside  the  Hebrew  text  ?     Likewise,  where  you 
bid  us  strike  out  of  the  Hebrew,  Psalm  xxi.,  that  which  con-  [fsai- x""! 
cerneth  our  redemption  on  the  cross,   "  They  have  pierced 
my  hands  and  my  feet,"  because  in  the  Hebrew  there  is  no 
such  thing ;  you  say  most  untruly,  for  there  is  nothing  else 
in  the  Hebrew,  no,  not  in  the  common  readings,  as  Johannes 
Isaac,   a  popish  Jew,  will  teach  you,  who  hath  confuted  the 

46  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

cavils  of  Lindanus  against  the   Hebrew  text,  of  whom  you 
borrowed  this  example,  where,  if  you  had  not  been  blind  with 
malice,  you  might  have  seen  that  St  Jerome  did  read  without 
controversy  fixerunt,   "  they  have  pierced,"  as  also  that  the 
most  ancient  copy  of  the  Hebrew  Psalms,  supposed  to  have 
nxa        pertained  to  St  Augustine  of  Canterbury,  hath  charu,   "  they 
have  pierced  ; "  though  you  had  been  ignorant  what  is  written 
concerning  tliis  word  in  the  Masoreth,  and  what  Isaac  also 
writeth  of  that  word,  as  it  is  commonly  read,  that  it  cannot 
signify,  as  you  fancy,  sicut  leo,  "  like  a  lion:"  and  therefore  the 
Chaldee  paraphrase  tm'neth  it,  "  As  a  lion,  they  pierced  my 
hands  and  my  feet."     But  of  this  matter  more  hereafter,  as 
occasion  shall  be  given.     As  for  the  apostle,  Ephes.  iv.  saying 
that  Christ  pave  gifts,  whereas  of  David  it  is  said,  he  received 
gifts,  speaketh  notliing  contrary  to  the  Hebrew ;  but  sheweth 
wherefore  Christ  hath  received  gifts,  namely,  to  bestow  upon 
his  church : — except  you  will  say  that   Christ  gave  of  liis 
own  and  received  none,   and  so  the  apostle  doth  shew  the 
excellency  of  the  truth  above  the  figure,  Christ  above  David. 
Likewise,  where  the  psalmist  saith  in  the   Hebrew,  "  Thou 
hast  opened  mine  ears,"  the  apostle  doth  rightly  collect,  that 
Christ  had  a  body,  wliich  in  his  obedience  was  to  be  offered 
unto  the  Father.     Last  of  all,  you  would  have  five  souls  cut 
from  seventy-five  in  St  Stephen's  sermon,  because  it  is  not 
in  the  Hebrew ;    but    you    are    deceived.     For  St  Stephen 
gathereth  the  whole  number  of  them  that  are  named  in  the 
46th  chapter  of  Genesis,  namely,  the  two  sons  of  Judah  that 
were  dead,  and  Jacob's  four  wives,  to  shew  how  great  liis 
famUy  was  at  the  uttermost,  before  he  went  down  into  Egypt, 
and  how  greatly  God  did  multiply  him  afterward.     What  is 
there  in  any  of  these  examples  lilce  to  qui  fuit  Cainan,  about 
which  you  make  so  much  ado  ? 

Mariin,  Martin.    Must  such  difficulties  and  diversities  be  resolved  by  cliop- 

ping  and  changing,  hacking  and  hewing,  the  sacred  text  of  holy  scripture  ? 
See  into  what  perplexities  wilful  heresy  and  arrogancy  hath  driven  them. 
To  discredit  the  vulgar  Latin  translation  of  the  bible,  and  the  Fathers' 
expositions  according  to  the  same,  (for  that  is  the  oi-iginal  cause  of  this,) 
and  besides  that  they  may  have  always  this  evasion,  "  It  is  not  so  in  the 
Hebrew,  it  is  otherwise  in  the  Greek,"  and  so  seem  jolly  fellows  and 
great  clerks  unto  the  ig'norant  people.  What  do  they  ?  They  admit 
only  the  Hebrew  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Greek  in  the  New,  to  be 
the  true  and  authentical  text  of  the  scripture.   Whereupon  this  followeth. 


that  they  reject,  and  must  needs  reject,  the  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament 
(called  the  Septuagint)  as  false,  because  it  differeth  from  the  Hebrew.  Their  per- 
Which  being  rejected,  thereupon  it  folio weth  again,  that  wheresoever  defending 
those  places  so  disagreeing  from  the  Hebrew  are  cited  by  Christ   or  Hebrew^ text 
the  evangelists  and  apostles,  there  also  they  must  be  rejected,  because  Testament, 
they  disagree  from  the  Hebrew ;  and  so  yet  again  it  foUoweth  that  the  j",^*!.  ^ff^ 
Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  true,  because  it  is  not  according  ^ew. 
to  the  Hebrew  verity,  and  consequently  the  words  of  our  Saviour  and 
writings  of  his  apostles  must  be  reformed  (to  say  the  least),  because 
they   speak  according  to    the   Septuagint,  and    not  according  to  the 

Fulke.  Who  alloweth,  or  who  can  abide  chopping  and  Fulke, 
changing,  or  hacking  and  hewing,  the  sacred  text  of  holy  scrip-  ^^' 
tures  ?  As  for  the  perplexities,  whereunto  you  feign  that  wilful 
heresy  and  arrogance  hath  driven  us,  is  of  your  weaving ;  for 
(God  be  praised !)  we  can  well  enough  with  good  conscience 
and  sound  knowledge,  that  may  abide  the  judgment  of  all  the 
learned  in  the  world,  defend  both  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old 
Testament  and  the  Greek  text  of  the  Ncav  :  not  of  pm^pose  to 
discredit  the  vulgar  Latin  translation  and  the  expositions  of 
the  Fathers,  but  to  fetch  the  truth,  upon  which  the  hope  of 
otu"  salvation  is  grounded,  out  of  the  first  fountains  and  springs, 
rather  than  out  of  any  streams  that  are  derived  from  them. 
And  this  we  do  agreeable  to  the  ancient  Fathers'  judgments. 
For  who  knoweth  not,  what  fruitful  pains  St  Jerome  took  in 
translating  the  scripture  out  of  the  original  tongue  ?  JSTeither 
would  he  be  dissuaded  by  St  Augustine  ^  who  although  he 

[^  Contra  ignota  signa  propria  magnum  remedium  est  linguarum 
cognitio.  Et  Latinae  quidem  linguae  homines,  quos  nunc  instruendos 
suscepimus,  duobus  aliis  ad  scripturarum  divinarum  cognitionem  opus 
habent,  Hebrsea  scilicet  et  Graeca,  ut  ad  exemplaria  praecedentia  recur- 
ratur,  si  quam  dubitationem  adtulerit  Latinoi-um  interpretum  inftnita 
varietas.  Quamquam  et  Hebraea  verba  non  interpretata  saepe  invenia- 
mus  in  libris,  sicut  Amen,  et  Halleluia,  et  Racha,  et  Hosanna,  et  si  qua 
sunt  alia;  quorum  partim  propter  sanctiorem  auctoritatem,  quam  vis 
interpretari  potuissent,  servata  est  antiquitas,  sicut  est  Amen,  et  Hal- 
leluia; partim  vero  in  aliam  linguam  transferri  non  potuisse  dicuntur, 
sicut  alia  duo  quae  posuimus.  Sunt  enim  quaedam  verba  certarum  lin- 
guarum, quae  in  usum  alterius  linguae  per  interpretationem  transire 
non  pos^int.  Et  hoc  maxime  interjectionibus  accidit,  quae  verba  mo- 
tum  animi  significant  potius,  quam  sententiae  conceptae  uUam  particu- 
1am;  nam  et  haec  duo  talia  esse  perhibentur:  dicunt  enim  Racha  in- 
dignantis  esse  vocem,  Hosanna  laetantis.  Sed  non  propter  haec  pauca, 
quae  notare  atque  interrogare  facillimum  est,  sed  propter  diversitates, 


48  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

misliked  that  enterprise  at  the  first,  yet  afterward  he  highly 
commended  the  necessity  of  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  tongue 
for  Latin  men,  to  find  out  the  certain  truth  of  the  text  in 
the  infinite  variety  of  the  Latin  interpretations ;  for  thus  he 
writeth,  De  Doct.  Christ,  lib.  2,  cap.  11 :  Contra  ignota  signa 
propria  magnum  remedium  est  linguarum  cognitio.  Et  Latince, 
^c.  "Against  unknown  proper  signs  the  knowledge  of  tongues 
is  a  great  remedy.  And  truly  men  of  the  Latin  tongue, 
whom  we  have  now  taken  in  hand  to  instruct,  have  need  also 
of  two  other  tongues  unto  the  knowledge  of  the  divine  scrip- 
tures, namely,  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  that  recourse  may 
be  had  unto  the  former  copies,  if  the  infinite  variety  of  the 
Latin  interpreters  shall  bring  any  doubt;  although  we  find 
oftentimes  in  the  books  Hebrew  words  not  interpreted,  as 
Amen,  Alleluia.,  Racha,  Osanna,  Sfc,"  and  a  little  after,  Sed 
nan  propter  hcec  pauca^  S^c.  "  But  not  for  these  few  words 
wliich  to  mark  and  inquire  of  it  is  a  very  easy  thing,  but  for 
the  diversities  (as  it  is  said)  of  the  interpreters,  the  knowledge 
of  those  tongues  is  necessary.  For  they  that  have  interpreted 
the  scriptures  out  of  the  Hebrew  tongue  into  the  Greek 
tongue  may  be  numbered,  but  the  Latin  interpreters  by  no 
means  can  be  numbered.  For  in  the  first  times  of  the  faith, 
as  a  Greek  book  came  into  every  man's  hand,  and  he  seemed 
to  have  some  skill  in  both  the  tongues,  he  was  bold  to  inter- 
pret it.  Wliich  thing  truly  hath  more  helped  the  under- 
standing than  hindered,  if  the  readers  be  not  negligent ;  for 
the  looking  upon  many  books  hath  oftentimes  made  manifest 
sundry  obscure  or  dark  sentences."  This  is  St  Augustine's 
sound  judgment  of  the  knowledge  of  tongues  and  diversity 
of  interpretations,  for  the  better  understanding  of  the  scrip- 
tures. But  let  us  see  what  be  the  absurdities  that  you  gather 
of  our  defending  the  original  texts  of  both  the  tongues. 
First,  we  must  needs  reject  the  Greek  of  the  Old  Testament, 

ut  dictum  est,  interpretum,  illarum  linguarum  est  cognitio  necessaria. 
Qui  enim  scripturas  ex  Hebraea  lingua  in  Grsecam  verterunt,  nume- 
rari  possunt,  Latini  autem  interpretes  nullo  mode.  Ut  enim  cuique 
primis  fidei  temporibus  in  manus  venit  codex  Graecus,  et  aliquantu- 
lum  facultatis  sibi  utriusque  linguse  habere  videbatur,  ausus  est  inter- 
pretari.  Quae  quidem  res  plus  adjuvit  intelligentiam,  quam  impedivit,  si 
modo  legentes  non  sint  negligentes.  Nam  nonnuUas  obscuriores  sen- 
tentias  plurium  codicum  saepe  manifestavit  inspectio. — De  Doctrina 
Christiana,  Lib.  ii.  cap.  11,  12.     Opera,  Vol.  in.  pp.  24,  25.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  49 

called  Septuagint,  as  false,  because  it  differeth  from  the 
Hebrew,  wKere  it  is  not  only  different  in  words,  but  also 
contrary  in  sense.  Why  should  we  not?  But  if  it  retain  the 
sense  and  substance,  although  it  express  not  the  same  words, 
we  need  not  reject  it.  St  Jerome  \  who  was  required  by  Paula 
and  Eustochium  to  expound  the  prophets,  not  only  accord- 
ing to  the  truth  of  the  Hebrew,  but  also  after  the  translation 
of  the  Septuagint,  whereof  he  divers  times  complaineth, 
upon  the  1st  of  Nahum  saith  expressly,  that  it  was  against 
liis  conscience  always  to  follow  the  same.  Ignoscite  prolixi- 
iati,  Sfc.  "  Pardon  me  that  I  am  so  long,  for  I  cannot, 
following  both  the  story  and  the  tropology  or  doctrine  of 
manners,  comprehend  both  briefly ;  most  of  all,  seeing  that 
I  am  so  greatly  tormented  or  troubled  with  the  variety  of  the 
translation,  and  against  my  conscience  sometimes  I  am  com- 
pelled to  frame  a  consequence  of  the  vulgar  edition,"  which 
was  the  Septuagint.  This  was  St  Jerome's  opinion  of  the 
Septuagint  translation.  But  upon  rejection  of  that  trans- 
lation (say  you)  it  followeth,  that  wheresoever  those  places,  so 
disagreeing  from  the  Hebrew,  are  cited  by  Christ,  or  the 
evangehsts  and  apostles,  there  also  they  must  be  rejected, 
because  they  disagree  from  the  Hebrew;  and  so  the  Greek 
text  of  the  New  Testament  is  not  true,  and  consequently 
the  words  of  our  Saviour  and  writings  of  his  apostles,  speak- 
ing according  to  the  Septuagint,  must  at  least  be  reformed. 
It  is  an  old  saying,  and  a  true,  that  one  inconvenience  being 
granted,  many  do  follow;  and  so  you  may  heap  up  an  hundred 
after  this  manner.  But  for  answer  I  say,  that  neither  our 
Saviour,  nor  his  apostles,  citing  any  place  out  of  the  Old 
Testament,  do  bring  anything  disagreeing  in  sense  and  sub- 
stance of  matter  (the  purpose  for  which  they  allege  it  consi- 
dered) from  the  truth  of  the  Hebrew  text.  Therefore  there 
is  no  need  that  the  LXX.  in  those  places  should  be  rejected. 
Although  our  Saviour  Christ,  speaking  in  the  Syrian  tongue, 
is  not  to  be  thought  ever  to  have  cited  the  text  of  the  LXX., 
which  is  in  Greek.     And  his  apostles  and  evangehsts,  using 

[}  Ignoscite  prolixitati:  non  enim  possum,  et  historian!  et  tropolo- 

giam  sequens,  breviter  utrumque  comprehendere :  maxime  qiium  et 

interpretationis  varietate  torquear,  et  adversus  conscientiam  meam  cogar 

interdum  vulgatae  editionis  consequentiam  texere. — Gomment.  Hiero- 

nymi  in  Nahum.  cap.  1.    Opera,  Vol.  in.  p.  1507.] 


50  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

that  text,  regard  the  substance  of  the  sentence,  and  not  the 
form  of  words.  For  many  times  they  cite  not  the  very  words 
of  the  Greek  LXX.  neither;  and  St  Jerome,  in  Catalogo  script. 
Eccles.,  which  is  set  as  a  preface  to  St  Matthew's  gospel, 
telleth  you  expressly,  that  in  the  Hebrew  example  of  St 
Matthew,  which  he  had,  wheresoever  the  evangehst  St  Matthew, 
either  in  his  own  person,  or  in  the  person  of  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  useth  the  testimonies  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  fol- 
loweth  not  the  authority  of  the  seventy  translators,  but  the 
Hebrew,  of  which  these  are  two  places  :  "  Out  of  Egypt  have 
I  called  my  son,"  and  "  he  shall  be  called  a  Nazarite."  See 
you  not  what  a  perilous  perplexity  we  are  in  by  defending 
both  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  Greek 
of  the  New,  when  neither  are  contrary  to  the  other  ? 

Martin,  Martin.  All  which  must  needs  follow,  if  this  be  a  good  consequence, 

21.  «  J  gjj^  j^  jjQ^  jjj  Moses,  nor  in  the  Hebrew,  therefore  I  struck  it  out," 

as  Beza  doth  and  saith  concerning  the  foresaid  words,  qui  fait  Cainan. 
This  consequence  therefore  let  us  see  how  they  will  justify ;  and  withal 
let  them  tell  us,  whether  they  will  discredit  the  New  Testament  because 
of  the  Septuagint,  or  credit  the  Septuagint  because  of  the  New  Testament; 
or  how  they  can  credit  one  and  discredit  the  other,  where  both  agree 
and  consent  together;  or  whether  they  wUl  discredit  both  for  credit 
of  the  Hebrew;  or  rather,  whether  there  be  not  some  other  way  to 
reconcile  both  Hebrew  and  Greek,  better  than  Beza's  impudent  pre- 
sumption. Which  if  they  wUl  not  maintain,  let  them  flatly  confess  that 
he  did  wickedly,  and  not  (as  they  do)  defend  every  word  and  deed  of 
their  masters,  be  it  never  so  heinous,  or  salve  it  at  the  least. 

FiTLKE,  Fulke.    No  whit  of  that  doth  follow  by  striking  out  qui 

fait  Cainan,  because  it  is  not  found  in  Moses;  and  therefore  we 
have  nothing  to  do  to  justify  your  vain  consequence,  grounded 
upon  an  absurdity  of  your  own  devising.  But  we  must  tell 
you,  whether  we  will  discredit  the  New  Testament  because  of 
the  Septuagint!  No,  not  for  a  thousand  millions  of  Septuagints, 
nor  for  all  the  world  will  we  credit  the  Septuagint  against  the 
truth  of  the  Old  Testament.  But  whatsoever  is  cited  out  of 
the  LXX.  in  the  New,  is  not  contrary  to  the  Hebrew  in  the 
Old;  and  therefore  the  way  of  reconciliation  is  easily  found, 
without  discrediting  both,  or  either  of  both,  in  those  places. 
And  in  this  place,  which  is  a  mere  corruption,  borrowed  out  of 
the  corruption  of  the  Septuagint,  or  a  Judaical  addition, 
Genesis  xi.  I  think  there  is  no  better  way  of  reconciling  than 
to  strike  it  clean  out,  as  Beza  hath  done ;  which  generation 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  51 

neither  is  in  the  Hebrew  verity,  nor  in  your  own  vulgar  Latin 
translation;  either  Genesis  xi.,  or  1  Par.  i.  Beside  that  it 
maketh  a  foul  error  in  the  computation  of  time,  adding  no 
less  than  two  hmidred  and  thirty  years  between  Arphaxad 
and  Sala,  more  than  the  Hebrew  verity,  or  the  vulgar  Latin 
agreeing  therewith,  doth  number.  And  therefore  he  was 
more  presumptuous,  that  out  of  the  corrupt  and  false  text 
of  the  Septuagint  added  the  same  mito  the  genealogy  in  St 
Luke,  than  Beza,  which  by  the  authority  of  Moses  removed 
the  same.  If  you  will  still  persist  to  defend  the  authority  of 
the  Septuagint  against  the  Hebrew  verity,  which  like  an  atheist 
you  deride,  at  leastwise  defend  your  own  vulgar  Latin  trans- 
lation of  the  Old  Testament,  and  deUver  yourself  out  of  that 
perplexity  in  which  you  would  place  us  between  the  Hebrew 
of  the  Old  and  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament ;  seeing 
no  less  doubts  entangleth  you  between  the  Latin  of  the  New, 
and  the  Latin  of  the  Old,  differing  altogether  alike  as  the 
Greek  and  the  Hebrew  do. 

Martin.  Alas !  how  far  are  these  men  from  the  modesty  of  the  ancient  Martin, 
fathers,  and  from  the  humble  spirit  of  obedient  catholics,  who  seek  all  „  '    ^ 

'  ^  ^  How  the 

other  means  to  resolve  difficulties,  rather  than  to  do  violence  to  the  fathers  re- 
sacred  scripture ;  and  when  they  find  no  way,  they  leave  it  to  God.  said  Hebrew 
St  Augustine,  concerning  the  difference  of  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek,  lib.  is.  de' 
saith  often  to  this  effect,  that  it  pleased  the  Holy  Ghost  to  utter  by  43"''  '^^'^ 
the  one  that  which  he  would  not  utter  by  the  other.  And  St  Ambrose^  Doctchr. 
thus :  "  We  have  found  many  things  not  idly  added  of  the  seventy  Hlxam  lib 
Greek  interpreters."    St  Jerome^,  though  an  earnest  patron  of  the  He-  f^'^^f-  ^■ 

lib.  Paralip. 

[}  Multa  enim  non  otiose  a  Septuaginta  viris  Hebraicae  lectioni  ad- 
dita  et  adjuncta  comperimus. — Hexaemeron.  Lib.  iii.  cap.  5.  Opera.  Vol.  i. 
p.  42.] 

[^  Legimus  in  apostolo :  In  aliis  Unguis  et  in  labiis  aliis  loquor  po- 
pulo  huic,  et  nee  sic  exaudient  me,  dicit  Dominus.  Quod  mihi  videtur 
juxta  Hebraicum  de  praesenti  sumptum  capitulo :  et  hoc  in  veteri  ob- 
servavimus  Testament©  (absque  paucis  testimoniis,  quibus  Lucas  solus 
abutitur,  qui  magis  Grsecae  hnguae  habuit  scientiam)  ubiquumque  de 
veteri  instrumento  quid  dicitur,  non  eos  juxta  Septuaginta,  sed  juxta 
Hebraicum  ponere,  nullius  sequentes  interpretationem,  sed  sensum  He- 
braicum cum  suo  sermone  vertentes.  Symmachus,  Theodotio,  et  LXX. 
de  hoc  loco  (nempe  Isaise  xxviii.  9-13)  diversa  senserunt:  et  quia 
longum  est  de  omnibus  dicere,  LXX.  Interpretes,  qui  leguntur  in  ec- 
clesiis,  breviter  transcurramus. — Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Isaiae  xxviii. 
Opera,  Vol.  iii.  pp.  237,  238. 

Neque  vero  Septuaginta  Interpretum,  ut  invidi  latrant,  errores  ar- 


52  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

brew  (not  without  cause,  being  at  that  time  perhaps  the  Hebrew  verity 

indeed)  yet  giveth  many  reasons  for  the  differences  of  the  Septuagint; 

Comment,  in  and  concerning  the  foresaid  places  of  St  Luke,  he  doth  give  a  reason 

and  in  Quae- 

stion.  He-  guimus.  •  •  •  •  Nec  nostrum  laborem  illorum  reprehensionem 
putamus,  quum  illi  Ptolemaeo,  regi  Alexandria,  mystica  quiEque  in 
scripturis  Sanctis  prodere  noluerint;  et  maxirae  ea  quae  Christi  adven- 
tum  poUicebantur ;  ne  viderentur  Judsei  et  alteram  Deum  colere :  quos 
ille  Platonis  sectator  magni  idcirco  faciebat,  quia  unum  Ueum  colere 
dicerentur.  Sed  et  evangelistae,  et  Dominus  quoque  noster  atque  Sal- 
vator,  necnon  et  Paulus  apostolus,  multa  quasi  de  veteri  Testamento 
proferunt,  quae  in  nostris  codicibus  non  habentur:  super  quibus  in 
suis  locis  plenius  disseremus.  Ex  quo  perspicuum  est,  ilia  magis  vera 
esse  exemplaria,  quae  cum  novi  Testamenti  auctoritate  concordant. — 
Praefatio  Hieronymi  in  Lib.  Heb.  Qusest.  in  Genesim.  Opera,  Vol.  ii. 
pp.  506,  507. 

Si  Septuaginta  interpretum  pura,  et  ut  ab  eis  in  Graecum  versa 
est,  editio  permaneret,  superfue  me,  mi  Chromati,  episcoporiim  sanctis- 
sime  atque  doctissime,  impelleres,  ut  Hebraea  volumina  Latino  sermone 
transferrem :  quod  enim  semel  aures  hominum  occupaverat,  et  nas- 
centis  ecclesiae  roboraverat  fidem,  justum  erat  etiam  nostro  silentio 
comprobari.  Nunc  vero,  cum  pro  varietate  regionum  diversa  ferantur 
exemplaria,  et  germana  ilia  antiquaque  translatio  corrupta  sit  atque 
violata;  nostri  arbitrii  putas,  aut  e  pluribus  judicare  quid  verum  sit, 
aut  novum  opus  in  veteri  opere  cudere,  illudentibusque  Judaeis  cor- 
nicum,  ut  dicitur,  oculos  configere.  Alexandria  et  -ffigyptus  in  Sep- 
tuaginta suis  Hesychium  laudat  auctorem.  Constantinopolis  usque 
Antiochiam  Luciani  Martyris  exemplaria  probat.  Mediae  inter  has 
provinciae  Palaestinos  codices  legunt,  quos  ab  Origene  elaborates  Euse- 
bius  et  Pamphilus  vulgaverunt:  totusque  orbis  hac  inter  se  trifaria 
varietate  compugnat.  Et  certe  Origenes  non  solum  exemplaria  compo- 
suit  quatuor  editionum,  e  regione  singula  verba  describens,  ut  unus 
dissentiens  statim  ceteris  inter  se  consentientibus  arguatur;  sed,  quod 
majoris  audaciae  est,  in  editione  Septuaginta  Theodotionis  editionem 
miscuit,  asteriscis  designans  quae  minus  ante  fuerant,  et  virgulis  quae 
ex  superfluo  videbantur  apposita.  Si  igitur  aliis  licuit  non  tenere  quod 
semel  susceperant ;  et  post  Septuaginta  cellulas,  quae  vulgo  sine  auctore 
jactantur,  singulas  cellulas  aperuere,  hocque  in  ecclesiis  legitur  quod 
Septuaginta  nescierunt;  cur  me  non  suscipiant  Latini  mei,  qui  invio- 
lata  editione  veteri  ita  novam  condidi,  ut  laborem  meum  Hebraeis  et, 
quod  his  majus  est,  apostolis  auctoribus  probem  2  »  •  *  •  Christus  Do- 
minus noster,  utriusque  Testamenti  conditor,  in  Evangelio  secundum 
Johannem,  Qui  credit,  inquit,  in  me,  sicut  dicit  scriptura,  flumina  de 
ventre  ejus  fluent  aquce  vivce.  Utique  scriptum  est,  quod  Salvator  scrip - 
tum  esse  testatur.  Ubi  scriptum  est  ?  Septuaginta  non  habent ;  apo- 
crypha nescit  ecclesiai.  Ad  Hebraeos  igitur  rcvcrtcndum  est,  unde  et 
Dominus  loquitur,  et  discipuli  exempla  praesumunt. — Pracfat.  Hierony- 
mi in  Paralipom.    Opera,  Vol.  i.  pp.  1022,  1023.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  53 

thereof,  both  for  the  seventy,  and  for  the  evangelist  that  followed  them, 
neither  doubting  of  the  truth  thereof,  nor  controlling  them  "  by  the 
authority  of  Moses"  (as  Beza  speaketh),  that  is,  by  the  Hebrew.  Others 
say  concerning  Cainan,  that  Moses  might  leave  liim  out  in  the  gene- 
alogy of  Shem  by  the  instinct  of  the  same  Spirit,  that  St  Matthew  left  Matt.  i. 
out  three  kings  in  the  genealogy  of  our  Saviour.  Where  if  a  man 
would  control  the  evangelist  by  the  Hebrew  of  the  Old  Testament 
that  is  read  in  the  books  of  the  Kings,  he  should  be  as  wise  and  as 
honest  a  man  as  Beza.  Lastly,  venerable  Bede  thinketh  it  sufficient  P^^f.  in  Act. 
in  tliis  very  difficulty  of  Cainan  to  marvel  at  it  reverently,  rather  than 
to  search  it  dangerously.  And  thus  far  of  picking  quarrels  to  the 
origmal  text,  and  their  good  will  to  alter  and  change  it  as  they  list, 
if  they  might  be  suffered. 

Fulke.    Here  of  pity  you  will  shew  unto  us  a  piece  of  learn-  Fulke, 
ing,  how  the  fathers  reconcile  the  said  Hebrew  and  Greek  ^2- 
without  violence  to  the  text,  as  they  do  always,  or  else  leave 
the  matter  to  God. 

First,  St  Augustine,  De  Civitate,  hb.  18,  cap.  43.  De  Docf. 
Chr.  lib.  2,  cap.  15,  of  their  agreement,  notwithstanding  they 
were  separated  mto  several  cells,  gathereth,  that  those  Septua- 
gints  were  inspired  with  the  same  prophetical  spu'it  of  inter- 
preting, that  the  prophets  were  in  foreshowing.  But  this  doth 
St  Jerome  utterly  deny,  and  derideth  the  gromid  of  this  pea^^JSi. 
imagination,  those  seventy-two  cells  at  Alexandria,  as  a  fable 
and  a  he.  That  St  Ambrose  saith,  "  we  have  found  that  many 
things  are  not  idly  added  of  the  seventy  Greek  interpreters ;"  p^^"'y''^- 
we  confess  as  much,  where  their  addition  serveth  for  exph- 
cation  of  that  which  is  contained  in  the  Hebrew :  and  so 
meaneth  Ambrose ;  not  that  they  had  authority  to  add  any 
tiling,  which  Moses  had  omitted.  And  we  acknowledge  with 
St  Jerome,  that  there  may  be  many  reasons  given  for  the 
difference  of  the  one  from  the  other.  But  concerning  tliis 
place  of  St  Luke  now  in  question,  you  say  he  giveth  a  reason 
thereof,  both  for  the  LXX.  and  for  the  evangehst  that  fol- 
lowed them,  neither  doubting  of  the  truth  thereof,  nor  con- 
trolUng  them  by  the  authority  of  Moses.  And  for  this  you 
quote  Comment,  in  28  Esa.  and  in  Question.  Hehrai.  in  neither 
of  wliich  places  is  any  mention  of  this  place,  much  less  any 
reason  given  to  reconcile  it  or  the  Septuagint  with  the 
Hebrew.  It  seemeth,  you  read  not  the  books  yourself,  but 
trusted  too  much  some  man's  collection,  which  you  understood 
not.     In  the  preface  to  the  Hebrew   Questions  Jerome  ex- 

54  THE    ANSWEE    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

cuseth  himself  against  envious  persons,  tliat  barked  against 
him  as  though  he  did  nothing  but  reprove  the  errors  of  the 
LXX.,  saying,  "  That  he  thinketh  not  liis  labour  to  be  a 
reprehension  of  them,  seeing  they  would  not  express  unto 
Ptolemffius,  king  of  Alexandria,  certain  mystical  things  in 
the  scriptures,  and  especially  those  things  which  promised 
the  coming  of  Christ,  lest  the  Jews  might  have  been  thought 
to  worship  another  God,  whom  that  follower  of  Plato  there- 
fore did  greatly  esteem,  because  they  were  said  to  worship 
but  one  God.  But  the  evangelists  also,  and  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  and  St  Paul  the  apostle,  bring  forth  many  things, 
as  it  were  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  which  are  not  had  in 
our  books,  of  which  in  their  due  places  we  will  more  fully 
discuss.  Whereof  it  is  clear,  that  those  are  the  more  true 
examples,  which  agree  with  the  authority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment." Thus  much  Jerome  in  that  place ;  but  neither  in 
liis  questions  upon  Genesis,  nor  1  Parahp.  the  proper  places 
for  tliis  text,  is  there  any  mention  of  this  place  of  Luke,  qui 
fmt  Cainan.  In  the  place  cited  by  you  upon  the  28th  of 
Isaiah,  he  saith,  Legimus  in  apostolo,  ^c.  "  We  read  in  the 
apostle,  '  In  other  tongues  and  hps  will  I  speak  to  this 
people,  and  neither  so  shall  they  hear  me,  saith  the  Lord :' 
which  seemeth  to  me  to  be  taken  out  of  this  present  chapter, 
according  to  the  Hebrew.  And  tliis  we  have  observed  in 
the  Old  Testament,  except  a  few  testimonies  which  only  Luke 
useth  otherwise,  wliich  had  knowledge  of  the  Greek  tongue 
rather  wheresoever  any  thing  is  said  out  of  the  Old  Testament, 
that  they  set  it  not  according  to  the  LXX.,  but  according  to 
the  Hebrew,  following  the  translation  of  no  man,  but  turning 
the  sense  of  the  Hebrew  into  their  own  speech."  You  see 
that  Jerome  saith  nothing  particularly ;  and  that  which  he 
saith  generally,  concerneth  this  place  nothing  at  all.  And 
very  like  it  is,  that  this  corruption  was  not  crept  into  St 
Luke's  text  in  his  time,  especially  seeing  neither  St  Ambrose 
in  his  Commentary  upon  St  Luke  once  toucheth  this  contro- 
versy, as  he  doth  all  other  questions  about  that  genealogy. 
Where  you  say,  St  Jerome  was  "a  great  patron  of  the  Hebrew, 
not  without  cause,  being  at  that  time  perhaps  the  Hebrew 
verity  indeed ;"  it  is  without  perhaps,  or  peradventure,  that 
not  one  iota  or  prick  of  the  law  of  God  can  perish,  by  the 
testimony  of  our  Saviour  Christ,  Matthew  v.     And  if  you 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  55 

will  believe  Arias  Montanus^  an  excellent  learned  papist,  he 
will  tell  you  as  much,  out  of  the  same  text  doubtless,  in  his 
preface  unto  the  great  bible  by  him  set  out,  with  diligent 
observation  of  all  the  accents  and  Hebrew  points,  which  Christ 
(saith  he)  will  never  suffer  to  perish.  And  if  the  Hebrew 
verity  were  in  Jerome's  time  (as  doubtless  it  was),  whether 
he  had  a  perfect  copy  thereof  or  no,  the  same  Arias  Mon- 
tanus  testifieth,  if  you  dare  credit  him,  being  one  of  your  sect 
for  opinion,  though  in  sincerity  of  mind  and  love  of  the  truth, 
which  I  pray  to  God  to  reveal  unto  him,  I  think  him  far 
better  than  a  number  of  you ;  he  (I  say)  affirmeth  in  the 
same  preface,  against  the  objection  that  is  made  of  the  Jews' 
corruption  of  the  Hebrew  books:  Etenim  apud  nonnull.  "  For 
we  read  in  some  authors  that,  through  the  fraud  and  impulsion  . 
of  the  spirit  of  error,  some  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews  in 
times  past  were  brought  to  that  point  of  insolence  or  madness, 
that  in  the  beginning  of  the  christian  chm'ch  they  changed 
some  words,  which  miffht  altoojether  break  off  that  their  con- 
tention  of  impugning  the  christian  verity.  But  those  places 
so  defiled  by  them  were  very  few ;  and  in  the  books  of  our 
writers,  and  also  in  the  copies  both  printed  and  written  of 
the  Jews  themselves,  are  all  for  the  most  part  noted  and 
shewed  out.  For  although  either  by  the  fraud  of  those  men, 
or  by  the  ignorance  of  the  book-writers,  or  by  injury  of  the 
times,  some  change  hath  been  made  in  the  Hebrew  books 
which  we  use ;  yet  is  there  not  one  word,  nor  one  letter,  nor 
point,  that  is  mentioned  to  have  been  of  old  time,  which  is 
not  found  to  have  been  safely  kept  in  that  most  rich  treasury, 
which  they  call  the  Mazzoreth.  For  in  that,  as  in  an  holy 
and  faithful  custody,  appointed  with  uttermost  diligence  and 
great  study,  the  remnants,  monuments,  tokens,  steps,  and 
examples  of  the  ancient  reading  are  all  contained,  and  the 
way  how  to  compare  the  old  and  new  reading  is  shewed ; 
of  which  truly,  being  compared  together,  a  very  certain  way 

\}  Nam  praeter  excellenteni  formarum,  chartae,  et  characterum 
praestantiam,  integras  etiam  Chaldaicas  in  veteri  Testamento  paraphra- 
ses, et  Syriacae  in  novo  lectionis  libros,  eosdemque  dUigenti  studio  et 
censura  examinatos,  et  commoda  Latinarum  interpretationum  copia  in- 
structos,  opus  hoc  Complutensibus  Bibliis  addit;  et  quod  ad  lectionis 
et  sententiarum  distmctionem  explicationemque  plurimum  confert,  ac- 
centus  omnes,  Hebraicosque  apices,  (quos  nunquam  perire  Christus 
patietur,)  diligentissime  observatos  adjungit. — Praefatio,  fol.  26.] 

56  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

is  extant,  to  the  prescript  rule  whereof  the  holy  mysteries 
may  be  shewed  forth,  examples  whereof  sometime  in  this 
work,  in  due  place,  and  elsewhere  also,  with  God's  help,  we 
will  set  forth."  Thus  far  Arias  Montanus,  whose  judgment 
if  you  say  you  are  not  bound  to  follow,  yet  I  suppose  you 
can  yield  no  sufficient  reason,  why  you  should  not  credit  his 
testimony  concerning  the  certainty  of  the  Hebrew  verity, 
remaining  to  this  day,  and  which  shall  remain  to  the  world's 
end,  although  all  the  smatterers  among  you  would  burst  for 
spite  against  it.  Concerning  the  opinion  of  them  which  think, 
that  Moses  might  leave  out  Cainan  in  the  Genealogy  of  Shem 
by  the  same  Spirit  that  Matthew  left  out  three  kings  in  the 
genealogy  of  our  Saviour,  I  answer.  If  it  be  lawful  so  to 
imagine,  we  may  without  study  answer  all  controversies ; 
although  the  same  reason  is  not  of  Moses,  compiling  a  certain 
accomit  of  the  time  from  the  flood  to  the  calling  of  Abraham, 
and  of  Matthew,  shewing  by  the  legal  descent,  which  every 
man  might  take  out  of  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles, 
that  Christ  was  the  son  of  David,  and  therefore  he  was  not 
bound  to  the  number  of  successors,  seeing  for  memory  it  was 
liis  purpose  to  recite  but  thrice  fourteen  generations. 

That  Bede  marvelleth  at  the  doubt  which  he  could  not 
dissolve,  his  modesty  is  to  be  commended  rather  than  liis 
knowledge.  Nevertheless  the  same  Bede^,  in  his  preface 
unto  his  Retractation  upon  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  speaking 
of  such  difference  as  he  found  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  Acts 
from  the  Latin,  he  saith :  Quae  utrum  negligentia  interpretis 
omissa,  Sfc.  "Which  things,  whether  they  were  omitted  through 
neghgence  of  the  interpreter,  or  otherwise  uttered,  or  for  lack 
of  regard  of  the  writers  depraved,  or  otherwise  left,  as  yet 
we  could  not  know.  For  I  dare  not  so  much  as  suspect 
that  the  Greek  copy  was  falsified :  wherefore  I  admonish  the 
reader,  that  wheresoever  we  have  done  these  things,  he  read 
them  for  liis  learning ;  yet  that  he  interlace  them  not  in  his 

[}  Quae  utrum  negligentia  interpretis  omissa,  vel  alitor  dicta,  an 
incuria  librariorum  sint  depravata,  sive  relicta,  nondum  scire  potni- 
mus.  Namque  Graecum  exemplar  fuisse  falsatum,  suspicari  non  audeo : 
imde  lectorem  admoneo,  ut  haec  ubicunque  fecerimus,  gratia  eruditionis 
legat,  non  in  suo  tamen  volumiae  velut  cmendatos  interserat,  nisi  forte 
ea  in  Latino  codice  sute  editionis  antiquitus  sic  interpretata  repererit. — 
Praefatio  ad  Retractationem  in  Acta  Apostolorum.  Bedas  Opera,  Vol. 
VI.  p.  1.  edit.  Colonise  Agrippinae.  1612.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  57 

book,  as  places  corrected,  except  perhaps  he  shall  find  the 
same  in  some  Latin  book  of  a  pecuhar  edition,  to  have  been 
of  old  so  interpreted."  This  place  sheweth  that  in  Bede's 
time  there  were  more  Latin  translations  than  one,  and  that 
the  vulgar  Latin  was  not  of  such  authority,  but  that  it  might 
be  corrected  by  the  Greek,  with  the  consent  of  other  ancient 
Latin  translations.  Likewise  upon  the  text  in  question, 
hb.  1,  in  Luc.  cap.  3^,  he  confesseth  that  the  name  and  gene- 
ration of  Cainan,  according  to  the  Hebrew  verity,  is  found 
neither  in  Genesis  nor  in  the  Chronicles ;  saying  that  St 
Luke  took  this  generation  from  the  edition  of  the  Septuagint. 
But  whether  is  the  truer,  or  whether  both  can  be  true,  he 
leaveth  it  to  the  knowledge  of  God ;  noting  that  whereas, 
according  to  the  Hebrew  verity,  from  the  flood  to  the  birth, 
of  Abraham  there  were  but  292  years,  the  LXX.  make 
1077,  so  that  the  difference  is  no  less  than  of  785  years. 

But  to  favour  this  fact  of  Beza,  in  putting  out  the  name  of 
Cainan,  there  is  an  ancient  copy  of  the  Gospels  and  Acts  in 
Greek  and  Latin,  of  as  great  antiquity  by  all  likehhood  as 
any  copy  this  day  extant  m  Christendom,  sent  unto  the 
university  of  Cambridge  this  last  year  by  Beza  himself, 
there  to  be  kept  in  the  common  hbrary,  in  which  copy  this 
generation  of  Cainan,  both  in  the  Greek  and  in  the  Latin, 
is  clean  left  out,  even  as  Beza  hath  done  in  liis  translation. 
So  that  he  hath  not  only  the  authority  of  Moses,  which  of 
itself  is  sufficient,  but  also  the  testimony  of  this  most  ancient 
book,  both  for  the  Greek  and  for  the  Latin,  to  approve  his 
fact    in    putting  out  qui  fmt    Cainan.     What  your  vulgar 

P  Nomen  et  generatio  Cainan,  juxta  Hebraicam  veritatem,  neque  in 
Genesi  neque  in  verbis  Dierum  invenitur ;  sed  Arphaxat  Sala  vel  Sale 
filium,  nullo  interposito,  genuisse  perhibetur.  Sic  enim  habes:  Porro 
Arphaxat  vixit  triginta  annos  et  genuit  Sale.  Itemque  in  Paralipo- 
menon,  Arphaxat  autem  genuit  Sala,  qui  et  ipse  genuit  Heber.  Scito 
ergo  beatum  Lucam  banc  generationem  de  Septuaginta  interpretum 
editione  sumpsisse,  ubi  scriptum  est,  quod  Arphaxat  centum  trigin- 
ta quinque  annorum  genuerit  Cainan,  et  ipse  Cainan,  cum  130  fuerit 
annorum,  genuerit  Sala.  Sed  quid  horum  sit  verius,  aut  si  utrum- 
que  verum  esse  possit,  Deus  noverit.  Nos  simpliciter  admonemus  lec- 
torem,  tantam  inter  utrosque  codices  in  serie  temporum  esse  discre- 
pantiam,  ut  a  diluvio  usque  ad  nativitatem  Abrahse  in  Hebraica  veritate 
anni  ccxcii,  in  Septuaginta  interpretum  translatione  m.  septuaginta  sep- 
tem  reperiantur  esse  comprehensi. — Beda  in  Lucae  Evangelium,  cap.  iii. 
Opera,  Vol.  v.  pp.  256-7.] 

58  THE     ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

Latin  translation  hath  left  out  in  the  latter  end  of  the  Lord's 
prayer  m  St  Matthew,  and  in  the  beginning  and  midst  in 
St  Luke,  whereby  that  heavenly  prayer  is  made  imperfect, 
not  comprehending  all  tilings  that  a  christian  man  ought  to 
pray  for,  beside  many  other  like  omissions,  whether  of  pur- 
pose, or  of  negligence,  and  injmy  of  time,  yet  still  by  you 
defended,  I  spare  to  speak  of  in  tliis  place. 


The  5th 
abuse  of 
which  is  the 
and  purpose 
of  this  book. 




Martin.  Which  also  may  be  proved  by  all  their  false  translations 
(being  the  principal  point  I  mean  to  speak  of)  most  evidently.  For 
as  now  they  translate  falsely  to  their  purpose,  because  they  cannot 
alter  the  text;  so  Avould  they,  if  it  were  possible,  have  the  text 
agreeable  to  then-  translation.  For  example,  he  that  translateth  "or- 
dinances," when  it  is  in  the  original  Greek  text  "justifications"  and 
"traditions,''  he  would  rather  that  it  were  "ordinances"  also  in  the 
Greek:  but  because  he  cannot  bring  that  about,  he  doth  at  the  least 
what  he  can,  to  make  the  ignorant  believe  it  is  so,  by  so  translating  it. 

FulJce.  You  shall  never  be  able  to  prove  by  any  transla- 
tion of  ours  (though  perhaps  in  some  we  may  err),  that  we  have 
any  purpose  either  to  falsify  the  truth,  or  to  change  the 
text,  though  it  were  possible  for  us.  In  translating  we  have 
dealt  with  a  good  conscience,  albeit  not  always  peradventm-e 
we  have  attained  to  the  full  truth,  which  in  translating  out 
of  one  tongue  into  another  is  a  very  hard  point  throughly  to 
observe.  Your  example  of  "ordinances"  translated  for  that 
which  in  the  Greek  is  "justifications"  and  "traditions,"  when  you 
shew  where  and  by  whom  it  is  so  translated,  you  shall  receive 
an  answer.  In  the  meantime  I  say,  a  translator  that  hath 
regard  to  interpret  for  the  ignorant  people's  instruction,  may 
sometimes  depart  from  the  etymology  or  common  signification 
or  precise  tiu-ning  of  word  for  word,  and  that  for  divers 
causes.  You  yourselves  translate  not  ecclesia  always  "  the 
church,"  but  sometimes  the  assembly  ;  nor  seniores,  "  elders," 
but  seniors,  or  ancients.  Neither  would  you  translate  pres- 
byter always  "  a  priest,"  if  you  translated  the  Old  Testament. 
In  the  story  of  Susannah  you  would  not  call  them  priests, 
that  laid  wait  for  her  honesty  and  hfe ;  yet  in  your  vulgar 
Latin  they  are  called  priests.  So  are  they  called  7rpe(j(ivr€poi 
in  Greek  in  the  New  Testament,  wliich  you  turn  sometimes 
priests,  sometimes  ancients,  and  sometimes  seniors. 

Martin.    And  this  of  all  other  is  the  most  fine  and  subtle  treachery 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  59 

against  the  scriptures,  to  deceive  the  ignorant  readers  withal,   (which 
St  Paul  calleth  "  the  secret  things  of  dishonesty  and  adulterating  of  the  2  Cor.  iv. 
word  of  God,"  as  it  were  mingling  water  with  wine,  like  false  vintners,) 
when  they  give  them  for  God's  word,  and  under  the  name  of  God's 
word,  their  own  words,  and  not  God's,'forged  and  framed,  altered  and 
changed,  according  to  differences  of  times,  and  variety  of  new  opinions, 
and  diversity  of  humours  and  spirits,   diversely  and  differently,  one 
heretic  not  only  correcting  his  fellow  every  day,  but  one  eagerly  re-  The  here- 
futing  and  refelling  another :   Bucer   and  the  Osiandrians  and  Sacra-  sion  about 
mentaries  against  Luther  for  false  translations ;  Luther  against  Munster,  latlons^"^ 
Beza  against  Castalio,  Castalio  against  Beza,  Calvin  against  Servetus,  Meian°"'' 
lUyricus  both  against  Calvin  and  Beza.     The  puritans   control  the  ^'g^-  ^'''*[- 
grosser  Calvinists  of  our  country ;  yea,  the  later  translations  of  the  ^^^  Zuing. 
selfsame  heretics   control   the  former  exceedingly,  not  only  of  over-  Confess, 
sights  but  of  wilful  falsifications ;  as  is  notorious  in  the  later  editions  rum. 
of  Luther  and  Beza,   and  in  our   English  bibles  set  forth  in  divers.  97!  '  ^" 
years,  from  Tindal  their  first  translator  until  this  day :  yea  (which  is  xesliment 
more)  the  English  translators  of  Beza's  New  Testament  control  him  "1^1^^  ^^'^^ 
and  his  translation,  wliich  they  protest  to  follow,  being  afraid  some-  Luke  iii.  36. 
times  and  ashamed  to  express  in  English  his  false  translations  in  the 

FulJce.  By  false  translations  wilfully  and  of  purpose  to  Fulkb, 
falsify  the  truth  of  God's  word  is  as  gross  and  as  abominable  ^^' 
treachery,  as  to  corrupt  the  very  text;  although  I  think  St 
Paul,  speaking  of  the  covertures,  or  cloaks  of  chshonesty,  and 
adultering  of  the  word  of  God,  2  Cor.  iv.  meaneth  a  further 
cunning  than  false  translations.  That  those  whom  you  call 
heretics  find  fault  with  one  another's  translations,  they  do 
none  otherwise  than  you  popish  heretics.  Do  not  you, 
Gregory  Martin,  in  the  7th  chapter  and  33rd  section  of 
tliis  book,  find  fault  with  all  the  catholics,  as  you  term  them, 
that  translate  sheol,  sepulchrum,  "a  sepulchre,"  and  not  always 'jn-:^ 
"hell"?  If  Bucer  or  Zuinghus  do" justly  observe  any  error  in 
Luther,  or  Luther  in  Munster,  or  Beza  in  Castaho,  the  ana- 
baptist, or  Calvin  in  Servetus,  the  horrible  heretic,  yea,  and 
if  froward  and  schismatical  lUyricus  can  discover  any  error 
committed  by  Calvin  and  Beza,  the  truth  loseth  nothing, 
when  the  errors  of  men  are  found  out,  by  what  means 
soever.  That  you  speak  of  the  puritans  controlhng  the 
grosser  Calvmists  of  our  country,  I  know  not  what  you  mean, 
neither  do  I  think  you  can  justify  your  words,  for  trans- 
lation of  the  scriptures.  Where  you  say,  the  later  trans- 
lations of  the  selfsame  heretics  control  the  former  exceed- 
ingly, not  only  of  oversights,   but  of  wilful  falsifications,  it 



Hexam.  lib. 
6.  cap.  4. 

is  a  wilful  and  impudent  slander ;  yet  you  blush  not  to  say, 
it  is  notorious.  How,  I  pray  you  ?  You  answer.  In  the  later 
editions  of  Luther  and  Beza,  and  m  our  Enghsh  bibles  set 
forth  in  divers  years,  from  Tyndal,  their  first  translator. 
That  Luther,  Beza,  and  the  later  translators  of  the  Enghsh 
bibles,  have  corrected  some  small  faults  that  have  escaped 
in  their  former  editions,  it  may  be  granted.  But  do  Luther 
and  Beza  therefore  accuse  themselves,  or  the  later  English 
translators  the  former,  of  wilful  falsifications?  I  tliink  those 
brute  beasts,  to  whom  Ambrose  ^  ascribeth  the  art  of  making 
syllogisms  (if  they  could  speak),  would  not  conclude  thus 
brutishly.  Certain  it  is  that  Balaam's  ass  did  reason  sub- 
stantially. But  much  more,  you  say,  the  Enghsh  translators 
of  Beza's  New  Testament  do  control  him  and  his  transla- 
tion, being  sometimes  afraid  and  ashamed  to  express  his 
false  translations.  If  it  be  so,  they  are  more  modest  than 
you,  which  seem  to  be  afraid  or  ashamed  of  nothing  so 
much,  as  lest  you  might  seem  to  fail  in  unshamefacedness. 
But  to  the  purpose.  If  they  thinlc  Beza  (as  all  men  may 
err)  hath  somewhat  trodden  awry,  is  it  a  fault  to  avoid  his 
step,  or  a  proud  controlhng  or  accusing  him  of  falsification  ? 
Nevertheless,  whereinsoever  Luther,  Beza,  or  the  Enghsh 
translators,  have  reformed  any  of  their  former  oversights, 
the  matter  is  not  so  great,  that  it  can  make  an  heresy. 
Yea,  if  you  were  of  St  Augustine's  judgment,  you  would 
acknowledge  that  the  multitude  and  diversity  of  translations 
is  for  the  benefit  of  them  that  be  ignorant  in  the  tongues, 
yea,  and  of  them  also  that  be  learned  in  them  oftentimes, 
that  of  divers  men's  translations  they  may  judge  which  is 
the  aptest. 

Martin.  But  in  this  catalogue  of  dissensions,  falsifiers,  and  dis- 
agreeing translators,  I  will  not  greatly  rip  up  old  faults,  neither  abroad 
ii.  23,'iii.2i.  uor  at  lioHie.  I  leave  Luther's  false  translations  mto  the  German 
French"and'  tongue  to  the  Credit  of  Staphylus,  Apolog.,  Part,  ii.,  and  Emserus, 
ruiftions'of    P'>'eef'  Annot.  in  no.  Test.  Luth.,  and  other  German  writers  of  his  own 

\}  Ursa  insidians  licet,  ut  scriptura  ait,  (est  enim  plena  fraudis  fera,) 
tamen  fertur  informes  utero  partus  edere,  sed  natos  luigua  fingere,  at- 
que  in  speciem  sui  similitudinemque  formare.  Non  miraris  in  fera  tam 
pii  oris  officia,  cujus  naturam  pietas  exprimit?  Ursa  igitur  partus  suos 
ad  sui  effingit  similitudinem :  tu  filios  tuos  instituere  simUes  tui  non 
potes? — Hexaemeron.  Lib.  vi.  cap.  4.  p.  18.  Ambrosii  Opera,  Vol.  i. 
p.  119.] 

De  noct. 

Christ,  lib. 
2.  cap.  11. 


THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  61 

time,  that  saw  them  and  read  them,  and  reckoned  the  number  of  them,  the  New 
in  the  New  Testament  only  about  1400  heretical  corruptions.     I  leave  See  Lind.  ' 
Calvin's  and  Beza's   French  corruptions  to  so  many  worthy  men  as8,'i"&c.'' 
have   noted  them   in  their  French  books  against   the  said  heretics :  thfrest"'' 
Tindal's  and  his  companions'  corruptions  in  their  first  English  bible, 
to  our    learned   countrymen  of  that  age,  and  namely  to  the  right 
reverend  father  and  confessor  bishop  Tonstal,  who  in  a  sennon  openly 
protested  that  he  had  found  in  the  New  Testament  only  no  less  than 
two  thousand.     If  we  know  it  not,  or  will  not  believe  it,  strangers  in  Lind.  Dub. 
their  Latin  Avritings  testify  it  to  the  world. 

Fulke.  We  are  much  beholding  to  you,  that  you  will  not  Fulke, 
rip  up  old  faults  abroad,  nor  at  home ;  and  leave  Luther's  ^'^' 
Dutch  translation  with  a  1400  heretical  corruptions  in  the 
New  Testament  only,  with  Calvin's  and  Beza's  French  cor- 
ruptions noted  by  Vigor,  and  the  rest :  also  Tyndal's  and, 
his  companions'  corruptions  in  their  first  Enghsh  bible,  in 
whose  translation  of  the  New  Testament  bishop  Tonstal  pro- 
fessed openly  in  a  sermon,  that  he  found  no  less  than  two  thou- 
sand corruptions.  This  you  know  he  protested  with  the  same 
tongue  with  which  he  forsware  the  pope,  and  sware  to  the 
king's  supremacy,  and  with  wliich  he  preached  a  solemn 
sermon,  wliich  is  in  print,  before  the  king,  against  the  pope's 
usurped  tyranny,  pride,  false  doctrine,  covetousness,  cruelty, 
treason,  perverting  of  scriptures,  as  in  the  same  sermon  more 
at  large  it  appeareth ;  and  therefore  we  need  not  Lindanus's 
writing  to  testify  of  his  credit.  But  thanks  be  to  God, 
that  when  you  have  scraped  all  that  unto  you  seemed  to 
have  any  shew  of  corruption,  you  cannot  find  two  hundred 
faults  in  the  translation  of  the  whole  bible,  nor  in  three 
several  translations  of  the  same ;  which  points  you  are  fain 
to  dilate  with  such  vain  tautologies  and  repetitions,  that 
all  learned  men  are  ashamed  of  your  tedious  writing :  and  yet, 
to  make  your  book  to  be  of  some  tolerable  length,  you  had 
no  better  shift  than  to  note  a  sort  of  Beza's  corruptions  in  his 
Latin  Testament;  who,  if  you  would  write  against  him  in 
Latin  any  thing  worth  the  noting,  would  thank  you  for  your 
pains,  and  reform  liis  errors ;  but  if  you  brought  nothing  but 
cavils,  would  so  shake  you  up,  as  you  should  have  small 
joy  of  your  insolent  invective :  but  you  provided  well  for  that, 
by  writing  against  a  Frenchman  in  Enghsh.  And  as  for  the 
number  of  errors  or  corruptions  that  you  would  have  the 
ignorant  believe  to  be  in  our  English  translations,  you  think 

62  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

is  SO  great,  as  must  needs  make  the  simple  abhor  it.  But 
look  homeward  a  little  into  your  authentical  vulgar  Latin 
translation,  how  many  faults  be  in  that,  which  your  Tridentine 
council  hath  authorised.  And  here  I  will  not  charge  it  with 
the  adversaries  thereof,  as  you  do  ours,  but  with  great  friends 
of  it  and  your  doctrine  ;  Lindanus,  bishop  of  Ruremond,  and 
Isidorus  Clarius^  monk  of  Casine,  and  bishop  Fulginatensis  :  of 
De  Opt  Gen.  which  the  former  writeth  a  whole  book,  discussing;  how  he 

interp.  lib.  i  i  i  i  •  • 

3-  would  have  the  errors,  vices,  corruptions,  additions,  detractions, 

mutations,    uncertainties,    obscurities,   pollutions,    barbarisms, 
and  solecisms  of  the  vulgar  Latin  translation  corrected  and 
reformed ;  bringing  many  examples  of  every  kind,  in  several 
ti"  to'the'^'    ^^^^pt^^^  ^^d  sections :   the  other,  Isidorus  Clarius,  giving  a 
ptntedat     reason  of  his  purpose,  in  castigation  of  the  said  vulgar  Latin 
jL^^^ss't!  translation,  confesseth  that  it  was  full  of  errors  almost  innu- 
merable ;  which  if  he  should  have  reformed  all  according  to  the 
Hebrew  verity,  he  could  not  have  set  forth  the  vulgar  edition, 
as  his  purpose  was.     Therefore  in  many  places  he  retaineth  the 
accustomed  translation,  but  in  his  annotations  admonisheth  the 
reader,  how  it  is  in  the  Hebrew.     And,  notwithstanding  tliis 
moderation,  he  acknowledgeth  that  about  eight  thousand  places 
are  by  liim  so  noted  and  corrected  ^    This  epistle  the  deputies 

P  Isidore  Clarius,  or  de  Clario,  bishop  of  Foligno,  bom  in  1495, 
in  his  youth  a  Benedictine  of  the  monastery  of  Mount-Cassin.  He  dis- 
tinguished himself  greatly  by  his  eloquence  and  talent  on  several  occasions, 
principally  at  the  council  of  Trent,  in  the  disputes  upon  the  authority 
of  the  text  and  versions  of  scripture.  After  having  discussed  the 
different  translations,  he  decides  that  none  of  them  are  eqmvalent  to 
the  text  of  the  original,  though  the  version  of  Jerome,  having  been 
used  for  a  thousand  years  in  the  church,  was  entitled  to  preference  over 
the  rest.  In  consequence  of  his  stating  m  his  Preface  to  an  edition  of 
the  Vulgate  (1542)  that  he  had  corrected  eight  thousand  passages  in 
it,  his  work  was  put  among  the  prohibited,  but  subsequently  allowed 
to  be  sold,  with  the  suppression  of  the  preface  and  prolegomena. 

The  work  to  which  Fulke  here  makes  allusion  is,  Vulgata  editio 

Veteris  et  Noin  Tesiamenti,  quorum  alterum  ad  Hebraicam,  alterum  ad 

Grcecam  veritatem  emendatum  est  quam  diligentissime,  ut  nova  editio  non 

facile  desideretur,  et  vetus  tamen  hie  agnoscatur.     Venetiis.  1542,  1557, 

and  1564,  fol.] 

P  Nam  in  his  horum  omnium  studiis  atque  laboribus  editio  ilia,  qua 
totus  Christianus  orbis  utitur,  ac  semper,  ut  facile  conjocto,usurus  est, 
nondum  squalorem  suum  deposuerat,  nee  ei  quisquam  errores,  quibus 
innumeris  pene  scatebat,  adimere  adhuc  curaverat.  "  •  "  •  Verum  etsi  ea. 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  63 

of  the  council  of  Trent  could  not  abide ;  and  therefore  in  the 
later  edition  of  this  bible,  set  forth  with  observation  of  their 
censure,  1569,  it  is  clean  left  out ;  as  also  a  goodly  collection 
of  the  same  Isidorus,  of  places  of  scripture,  exhorting  to  the 
study  of  holy  scripture,  and  a  like  sound  confession  of  those 
things  which  the  scriptures  teach,  &c. 

Martin.    But  I  omit  these,  as  unknown  to  our  country  or  to  this  Martin, 
age,  and  will  deal  principally  with  the  English  translations  of  our  time, 
which  are  in  every  man's  hands  within  our  country ;  the  corruptions  The  au- 
whereof,  as  they  are  partly  touched  here  and  there  in  the  Annotations  in*this  book. 
upon  the  late  new  English  Testament  catholicly  translated  and  printed 
at  Rheims,  so  by  occasion  thereof  I  will  by  God's  help,  to  the  better 
commodity  of  the  reader  and  evidence  of  the  thing,  lay  them  closer 
together,   and  more  largely  display  them,  not  counting  the  number, 
because  it  were  hard,  but  esteeming  the  weight  and  importance  of  so ' 
many  as  I   thought  good  to  note,   specially  in  the  New  Testament. 
Where  I  have  to  advertise  the  reader  of  certain  special  things,  which 
he  must  observe. 

FulJce.  You  should  rather  omit  them  as  untrue ;  for  albeit  Fulke, 
it  cannot  be  denied  but  some  faults  may  escape  the  most 
faithful  and  diligent  translator,  yet  so  many  heretical  corrup- 
tions, either  in  the  Dutch  or  English,  are  incredible,  and  turn 
rather  to  the  discredit  of  the  accuser,  in  all  wise  men's  judg- 
ment, than  to  the  parties  so  charged;  in  like  manner  as 
Surius^  noteth  no  less  than  eleven  thousand  lies  in  Sleidan, 

quam  diximus,  usi  fuerimus  moderatione,  loca  tamen  ad  octo  millia 
annotata  atque  emendata  a  nobis  sunt. — ;Isid.  Clarii  Praefat.  In  Vulg. 
Edit.  1542.] 

[^  The  following  passage  wiU  enable  the  reader  to  estimate  the 
value  of  the  opinion  of  Surius : 

Pestis  hoc  anno  multis  locis  plurimos  extinxit,  praesertim  Argen- 
tinse  et  in  locis  Rhenanis,  et  inter  alios  etiam  Johannem  Sleidanum, 
qui  suis  commentariis  magnam  orbi  Christiano  pestem  invexit.  Decre- 
verant  contra  Ulum  scribere  viri  duo  longe  clarissimi,  Coloniae  Agrip- 
pinae  preclara  lumina,  Johannes  GrofFerus  designatus  CardinaUs,  et 
Eberhardus  Billicus  Carmelitanus  Provincialis,  si  et  Sleidano  et  ipsis 
vita  prolixior  contigisset.  Nemo  me  putet  hominis  illius  odio  saepius 
ilium  perstringere.  Mihi  ille  nee  de  facie  unquam  notus  fuit.  Men- 
dacia  et  errores  tetros  Ulius  detestor.  Multi,  immo  plurimi,  norunt 
Julium  Pflugium  Numbergensem  Episcopum,  quo  oh  multam  aetatem 
nemo  fere  melius  noverat  res  imperii.  Is  Sleidani  Commentarios 
volebat  sibi  a  quodam  mihi  notissimo,  qui  turn  in  ejus  aula  versaba- 
tur,  legi.  Porro  vero  inter  legendum  cum  advertere  res  ipsi  notas  mala 
fide  a  Sleidano  narrari,  saepius  exclamabat,    Ibi  nebulo  ille  scelerate 




ments to  the 






(more  to  his  own  reproach,  than  to  the  defacing  of  Sleidan's 
credit,)  you  profess  wisely,  therefore,  not  to  count  the  num- 
ber, but  to  esteem  the  weight  and  importance  of  such  faults 
as  you  thought  good  to  note,  if  there  were  as  great  faithfulness 
in  your  performance,  as  there  is  wisdom  in  your  profession. 
But  now  to  your  nine  advertisements  to  the  reader. 

Martin.  First,  that  in  this  book  he  may  not  look  for  the  proof 
or  expUcation  and  deciding  of  controversies,  which  is  done  in  the 
Annotations  upon  the  New  Testament,  but  only  the  rcfutuig  or  con- 
trolling of  their  false  translations  concerning  the  said  controversies, 
which  is  the  peculiar  argument  of  this  treatise. 

FulJce.  I  think  there  is  no  wise  reader  would  look  for 
the  deciding  of  so  many  controversies  in  so  small  a  book  ;  and 
he  that  shall  seek  them  in  your  Annotations,  shall  find  even 
as  httle  to  the  purpose,  except  he  will  take  your  determina- 
tion without  proof  for  a  sufficient  decision.  As  for  the  doc- 
tors you  quote  without  judgment,  fraudulently,  falsely,  trun- 
cately,  and  otherwise  abusively,  [they]  have  all,  or  the  most, 
been  answered  long  ago ;  and  if  need  shall  be,  with  little 
labour  may  be  answered  again. 

Martin.  Secondly,  that  we  refute  sometime  one  of  their  transla- 
tions, sometime  another,  and  eveiy  one  as  their  falsehood  giveth  occa- 
sion. Neither  is  it  a  good  defence  for  the  falsehood  of  one,  that  it  is 
truly  translated  in  another;  the  reader  being  deceived  by  any  one, 
because  commonly  he  readeth  but  one.  Yea,  one  of  them  is  a  con- 
demnation of  the  other. 

Fulke.  That  sheweth  yom-  mahce  rather  than  either 
wisdom  or  honesty ;  for  if  we  ourselves  in  our  later  trans- 
lations have  corrected  some  small  and  few  errors,  that  have 
overslipped  us  in  our  former  translations,  we  have  shewed 
our  sincerity  and  care  of  setting  out  the  truth  by  all  means. 
And  where  you  say  it  is  no  good  defence,  the  reader  being 

mentitur.  Quin  et  Carolus  V.  integerrimus  et  potentissimus  imperator, 
cum  ipsi  quoque  legerentur  Commentarii  Sleidani,  itidem  subinde  ex- 
clamabat,  Nebulo  ille  mentitur,  nebulo  ille  mentitur.  Et  sane  datimi 
erat  ab  eodem  imperatore  negotium  cuidam,  ut  comitiorum  acta,  ob 
Sleidani  mendacia  confutanda,  sincere  excuderentur ;  sed  nescio  quo 
casu  res  ilia  impedita  fuit,  et  omnia  in  Hispanas  transferri  jussa  fe- 
runtur.  Certe  hseretico  homini  nunquam  tuto  credi  potest. —  Surii 
Commentarius  brevis  rerum  in  orbe  gestarum,  pp.  870,  371.  Colonise. 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  65 

deceived  by  any  one,  because  commonly  he  readeth  but  one; 
I  answer  you  first,  there  is  not  in  the  worst  translation  any 
fault  escaped,  that  may  of  itself  lead  him  into  a  damnable 
error.  Secondly,  he  hath  the  word  of  God  expounded  by 
catechising,  sermons,  and  lectures,  in  which  he  may  learn 
the  substance  of  christian  rehgion.  Thirdly,  he  hath  at 
hand  every  where  learned  divines,  unto  whose  counsel  he 
may  resort,  if  he  be  offended  with  anytliing  that  he  readeth 
in  his  bible,  sounding  contrary  to  the  pubhcly  received  doc- 
trine of  the  chm'ch.  In  that  you  say  the  one  of  our  trans- 
lations condemneth  the  other,  it  had  been  sufficient  to  have 
said,  reproveth :  which  is  only  where  there  is  a  manifest  error 
in  the  one ;  for  otherwise,  the  diversities  of  translations,  (as 
St  Augustine  teacheth  you,)  may  much  profit  the  simple  . 
readers ;  and  they  that  be  diligent  students  of  the  scriptures 
in  the  Enghsh  tongue  wUl  not  satisfy  themselves  with  every 
translation,  but  will  seek  for  the  best  approved. 

Martin.    Thirdly,  that  we  speak  indifferently  against  Protestants,  Martin, 
Calvinists,  Bezites,  and   Puritans,  without  any  curious  distinction  of29- 
them,   being  all  among   themselves   brethren   and    pew-fellows^    and 
sometime   the  one   sort  of  them,    sometime   the  other,  more  or  less 
corrupting  the  holy  scriptures. 

FulJce.     A  wise  advertisement.     But  tliis  is  to  be  noted,  Fulke, 
that  now  you  acknowledge  them  to  be  all  brethren  among     " 
themselves,  and  pew-fellows ;   but  when  you  hst,  they  shall 
be  at  deadly  feud  one  against  another,  and  no  commimity 
or  fellowship  between  them. 

Martin.     Fourthly,  that  we  give  but  a  taste  of  their  corruptions.  Wart  in, 
not  seeing  so  far,  nor  marking  all  so  narrowly  and  skilfully,  as  them-  ^  ■ 
selves  know  their  own  subtleties  and  meanings,  who  will  smile  at  the 
places  which  we  have  not  espied. 

Fulke.  He  that  considereth  your  quarrels  picked  to  words  Fclke, 
of  one  signification,  as  "church"  and  "  congregation,"  "justice" 
and  "righteousness,"  "elder"  and  "priest,"  "image"  and  "idol," 
"works"  and  "  deeds,"  and  such  hke,  will  not  think  that  you 
have  passed  over  any  great  matters  worth  the  writing  of ;  but 
that  you  would  set  a  vain  brag  of  the  case,  as  though  there 
were  much  worse  matter  than  you  have  wit  to  conceive.  Yet 
you  say  confidently  that  we,  as  guilty  of  our  own  subtleties 
and  meanings,  will  smile  at  the  places  which  you  have  not 




espied.  You  are  like  to  those  soothsayers  mentioned  in 
Tully,  of  whom  one  said  that  he  marvelled  if,  when  they  met 
together,  one  of  them  did  not  smile  upon  another,  because 
they  deluded  the  city,  and  got  themselves  much  honour  with 
such  vain  superstitions.  So  you,  being  newly  become  subtle 
and  partial  translators,  think  other  mien  to  be  like  your- 
selves. But  even  as  the  head  of  yom'  church^  once  jested 
with  his  cardinal,  how  great  wealth  and  honoiu'  that  fable 
of  Christ  (so  the  beast  called  the  christian  religion)  had 
brought  them;  even  so  you,  his  lewd  limbs,  make  sport 
among  yourselves  of  the  holy  word  of  God,  wliich  you  have 
corrupted  somewhat  with  your  blind  translations,  but  much 
more  with  your  heretical  annotations.  So  said  your  great 
friend,  Campion,  in  open  audience,  that  he  could  make  as 
good  sport  upon  the  incarnation  of  Christ.  According  to 
your  own  affection,  therefore,  you  judge  of  us,  and  not 
according  to  the  truth,  as  the  day  will  try,  when  the  secrets 
of  all  hearts  shall  be  made  manifest. 

Martin,  Martin.     Fifthly,  that  the  very  use  and  affectation  of  certain  terms> 

31'  and  avoiding  other  some,  though  it  be  no  demonstration  against  them, 

but  that  they  may  seem  to  defend  it  for  true  translation,  yet  was  it 

necessary  to  be  noted,  because  it  is  and  hath  been  always  a  token  of 

heretical  meaning. 

FuLKE,  Fulh.     When  our  translation  is  true,  I  doubt  not  but 


we  shaU  defend  the  use  of  some  terms,  and  the  avoiding  of 
other  some,  by  as  good  reason  as  you  shall  defend  the  like 
in  your  translations ;  especially  where  you  affect  new  terms 
unused,  or  not  understood,  and  avoid  common  and  usual  terms 
of  the  same  signification,  as  evangcHzing  for  preaching  the 
gospel;  advent  of  Christ  for  the  coming  of  Clirist;  scandaHzing 
for  offending;  scandal  for  offence,  &c.  Which  if  it  be,  as  you 
say,  always  a  token  of  heretical  meaning,  first  pluck  yourself 
by  the  nose,  and  then  see  if  we  cannot  defend  our  doings. 

Martin,  Martin.    Sixthly,  that  in  explicating  these  things  we  have  endea- 

voured to  avoid,  as  much  as  was  possible,  the  tediousness  of  Greek  and 
Hebrew  words,  which  are  only  for  the  learned  in  these  tongues,  and 
which  made  some  little  doubt  whether  this  matter  (which  of  necessity 
must  be  examined  by  them)  were  to  be  written  in  English  or  no. 
But  being  persuaded  by  those  (who  themselves  have  no  skill  in  the 
said  tongues)  that  every  reader  might  reap  commodity  thereby,  to  the 
understanding  and  detesting  of  such  false  and  heretical  translations,  it 

p  This  is  told  of  Leo  X] 



was  thought  good  to  make  it  vulgar  and  common  to  all  our  dear 
countrymen;  as  the  New  Testament  itself  is  common,  whereof  this 
discovery  is  as  it  were  a  handmaid,  attending  thereupon  for  the  larger 
explication  and  proof  of  corruptions  there  briefly  touched,  and  for 
supply  of  other  some  not  there  mentioned. 

Fulke.  He  that  seeth  your  margin  painted  with  Greek  Fulke, 
and  Hebrew  words  in  so  many  places,  may  guess  whether  it 
were  possible  for  you  to  have  avoided  the  tediousness  of 
them,  when  in  divers  places  the  Greek  and  Hebrew  words  are 
set  without  all  need  of  them,  and  sometimes  where  there  is 
no  controversy  about  them,  as  in  the  fifth  section  of  this 
preface,  where  you  shew  the  corruptions  of  the  Arians  and 
Pelagians;  and  in  the  nineteenth  section,  where  you  would 
shew  the  difference  of  the  New  Testament  from  the  Old  in 
citinof  of  testimonies.  But  the  Hebrew  word  in  the  Psalm 
xxi,  or  xxii.,  which  you  falsely  say  signifieth  no  such  thing  as 
"  piercing,"  you  set  not  down,  lest  your  falsehood,  by  them  that 
have  skill,  might  be  convmced.  And  if  you  had  cared  as 
much  to  find  out  the  truth,  as  to  shew  your  skiU  in  both  the 
tongues,  you  would  have  written  in  Latin,  especially  against 
Beza,  which  never  wrote  in  Enghsh.  And  vain  it  is,  that  you 
pretend  to  make  the  matter  common  to  your  dear  country- 
men, that  be  unlearned ;  for  the  judgment  must  rest  in  them 
that  have  knowledge  in  the  tongues,  albeit  you  had  written  in 
Latiu.  It  is  all  one,  therefore,  to  the  unlearned,  as  if  you 
had  only  said,  there  are  many  faults  or  corruptions,  which  in  a 
Latin  book  shall  be  cHscovered  to  the  judgment  of  the  learned, 
seeing  the  ignorant  cannot  understand  your  demonstrations. 

Martin.  Seventhly,  that  all  the  English  corruptions  here  noted  and  Martin, 
refuted  are  either  in  all  or  some  of  their  English  Bibles  printed  in 
these  years,  1562^,  1577^  1579'*.  And  if  the  corruption  be  in  one  bible, 
not  in  another,  commonly  the  said  bible  or  bibles  are  noted  in  the 
margin :  if  not,  yet  sure  it  is  that  it  is  in  one  of  them,  and  so  the  reader 
shall  find  it,  if  he  find  it  not  always  in  his  own  bible.  And  in  this  case 
the  reader  must  be  very  wise  and  circumspect,  that  he  think  not  by 
and  by  we  charge  them  falsely,  because  they  can  shew  him  some  later 
edition  that  hath  it  not  so  as  we  say.     For  it  is  their  common  and 

P  The  great  bible,  or  that  of  Coverdale's  translation,  first  printed 
in  1635,  and  reprinted  by  Cranmer's  direction  1539.  The  edition  of 
1662,  revised  by  Parker,  will  be  quoted  in  the  present  volume  for  the 
Old,  and  that  of  1639  for  the  New  Testament,  as  the  case  may  require.] 

P  The  Genevan  and  Bishops'  bible  were  each  printed  in  this  year.] 


68  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PKEFACE. 

known  fasliion,  not  only  in  their  translations  of  the  bible,  but  in  their 
other  books  and  writings,  to  alter  and  change,  add  and  put  out,  in  their 
later  editions,  according  as  either  themselves  are  ashamed  of  the  former, 
or  their  scholars,  that  print  them  again,  dissent  and  disagree  from  their 
masters.  So  hath  Luther,  Calvin,  and  Beza's  writings  and  trans- 
lations been  changed  both  by  themselves  and  their  scholars  in  many 
places;  so  that  catholic  men  when  they  confute  that  which  they  find 
evident  faults  in  this  or  that  edition,  fear  nothing  more  than  that  the 
reader  hath  some  other  edition,  where  they  are  corrected  for  very 
shame,  and  so  may  conceive  that  there  is  no  such  thing,  but  that  they 
Touchinsj  are  accused  wrongfully.  For  example  :  call  to  mind  the  late  pretended 
E^hOeT  conference  in  the  tower,  where  that  matter  was  denied  and  faced  out 
for  Luther's  credit,  by  some  one  book  or  edition  of  his,  which  them- 
selves and  all  the  world  knoweth,  was  most  truly  laid  to  his  charge. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.    First,  this  is  untrue ;  for  some  you  have  noted  in 

the  New  Testament  printed  1580.  Secondly,  it  is  uncertain ; 
for  two  of  these  translations  might  be  printed  in  one  year,  and 
so  I  think  they  were.  Therefore  I  know  not  well  which  you 
mean ;  but  I  guess  that  the  bible  1562  is  that  which  was  of 
Doctor  Coverdale's  translation,  most  used  in  the  church  service 
in  king  Edward's  time.  The  bible  1577,  I  take  to  be  that 
which,  being  revised  by  divers  bishops,  was  first  printed  in  the 
large  volume,  and  authorised  for  the  churches,  about  ten  or 
twelve  years  ago^.  That  of  1579^,  I  know  not  what  translation 
it  be,  except  it  be  the  same  that  was  first  printed  at  Geneva 
in  the  beginning  of  the  queen's  majesty's  reign.  And  this 
conjecture,  as  the  fittest  I  can  make,  I  must  follow,  seeing 
your  note  of  distinction  is  as  good  as  that  fellow's,  that  would 
know  his  master's  horse  by  the  bridle. 

But  it  is  a  common  and  known  fasliion,  you  say,  used  of 
us,  that  not  only  in  translations,  but  in  other  books  and  writ- 
ings of  ours,  we  alter  and  change,  add  and  put  to,  in  our  later 
editions.  And  who  useth  not  so  to  do,  if  by  later  cogitations, 
that  often  are  wiser,  he  find  anything  meet  to  be  changed? 
Do  not  you  papists  use  the  same?  Is  Bristow's  chapter  of 
obedience,  in  his  Motives,  nothing  altered  from  the  high  treason 
contained  in  the  first  edition  ?  Is  nothing  added,  taken  away, 
or  changed  in  your  Jesus'  Psalter,  in  any  of  your  editions?  Or 
are  you  yourselves  ashamed  of  the  former?     Or  have  your 

[}  Commonly  called  tlie  Bishops'  bible.] 

[^  It  is  the  Genevan  bible  printed  at  Edinburgli  in  this  year,  that 
Martin  quotes.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  69 

scholars  presumed  to  alter  their  masters'  writings  ?  If  you 
have  an  evasion  in  these  cases,  I  trust  we  are  not  so  pent  in, 
but  we  may  change  our  own  writings  without  shame  of  the 
former,  or  corruption  in  the  latter.  As  for  the  example  of 
St  James'  epistle,  denied  (as  you  say)  and  faced  out  for 
Luther's  credit,  [it]  will  serve  you  for  no  proof.  For  so  far 
off  is  it,  that  we  or  the  world  do  know,  that  it  was  most  truly 
laid  to  his  charge,  that  now  we  know  of  a  certainty,  that  it 
was  a  very  slander,  as  false  as  it  was  common;  seeing  Luther's 
words  of  that  epistle  are  not  absolute,  but  in  comparison,  as 
is  confessed  by  you,  and  found  by  some  of  us  to  be  none 
otherwise  in  deed,  who  have  not  stood  upon  one  only  book 
or  edition,  but  upon  as  many  as  they  could  come  by,  both  in 
the  Latin  and  in  the  Dutch  tongue. 

Martin.    Eighthly,  in  citing  Beza,  I  mean  always  (unless  I  note  Martin, 
otherwise)    his    Latin  translation  of   the   New   Testament,   with    his  "^^• 
annotations  adjoined  thereunto,  printed  in  the  year  1556. 

Fulke.  You  were  afraid,  lest  they  that  understood  not  Fulke, 
Latin,  for  whose  sake  you  wrote  in  Enghsh  tliis  treatise,  might 
take  hurt  by  Beza's  translations  and  annotations  in  Latin. 
And  if  he  liimseh'  have  espied  and  corrected  any  thing  of 
his  first  edition,  that  was  either  faulty  or  offensive,  in  his 
two  later  editions ;  with  great  equity,  as  though  you  were 
the  only  man  that  had  discovered  his  errors,  you  must  let  ^"''.is'^te''. 

•J  ^  .  edition  l.'ft). 

all  the  unlearned  in  England  know,  what  shameful  corruptions  X^t'camal 
you  have  observed  in  Beza's  translation  or  annotations.  Greek"and^ 

in  the  vulgar 

Martin.    Lastly  and  principally  is  to  be  noted,  that  we  will  not  i\I.\nTix, 
charge  them  with  falsifying  that  which  indeed  is  the  true  and  authen-  "^'^• 
tical  scripture,  I  mean  the  vulgar  Latin  bible,  which  so  many  years  We  charge 
hath  been  of  so  great  authority  in  the  church  of  God,  and  with  all  withVorsak- 
the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Latin  church,  as  is  declared  in  the  preface  approved'' 
of  the  New  Testament :  though  it  is  much  to  be  noted,  that  as  Luther,  Jifo'ighTt'be 
only  in  favour  of  his  heresies,  did  wilfully  forsake  it,  so  the  rest  a"j''/tj"ir 
followed,  and  do  follow  him  at  this  day,  for  no  other  cause  in  the  world,  evident  con- 
but  that  it  is  against  them.    And  therefore  they  inveigh  against  it,  and 
against  the  holy  Council  of  Trent,  for  confirming  the  authority  thereof,  Pi'l!';^'''"*' 
both  in  their  special  treatises  thereof,  and  in  all  their  writings  where 
they  can  take  any  occasion. 

Fulke.     In  the  margin,  "  You  will  not  charge  us  with  for-  Filkk, 
saking  the  old  approved  Latin  text,  though  it  be  an  ill  sign  '^•'- 



and  to  our  evident  confusion."  St  Augustine^,  although  a  mere 
Latin  man,  whom  you  yourself  do  after  confess  to  have  un- 
derstood but  one  tongue  well,  and  that  was  even  his  mother 
tongue,  learned  (as  he  confesseth)  of  his  nurses,  is  not  so 
addicted  to  the  Latin  translation,  but  that  he  would  have 
men  to  seek  to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  fountains,  which  you, 
like  a  blaphemous  hypocrite,  deny  to  be  the  true  and  authen- 
tical  scriptures  indeed ;  allowing  only  the  vulgar  Latin  trans- 
lation, as  though  neither  the  churches  of  Greece,  Syria,  Ar- 
menia, ^Ethiopia,  nor  any  other  in  the  world,  which  have  not 
the  vulgar  Latin,  had  not  the  true  and  authentical  scriptures. 
And  though  your  vulgar  Latin  hath  for  many  years  been  of 
great  authority  in  the  Latin  church,  from  the  time  when  the 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  tongues  have  decayed ; 
yet  is  it  utterly  false,  that  you  say,  that  it  hath  been  of  great 
authority  with  all  the  fathers  of  the  Latin  church ;  whereas 
there  is  not  one  that  lived  within  400  years  after  Christ  that 
knew  it,  but  almost  every  one  followed  a  several  translation. 
And  St  Augustine  in  the  place  before  cited  telleth  you,  that 
there  were  innumerable  translations  out  of  the  Greek  into 
the  Latin.  Again,  that  your  vulgar  Latin  is  full  of  many 
errors  and  corruptions,  I  have  shewed  by  the  confession  of 
Isidorus  Clarius  and  Lindanus,  two  of  your  own  profession ; 
of  wliich  the  one  took  pains  by  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  to 
correct  it,  the  other  shewed  means  how  it  should  be  corrected. 
And  where  you  say  that  Luther  and  his  followers  forsook  it 
for  none  other  cause  in  the  world,  but  that  it  is  against  them, 
it  is  utterly  untrue.  For  beside  that  they  have  made  clear 
demonstration  of  many  palpable  errors  therein,  (which  they 
that  have  any  forehead  amongst  you  cannot  deny,)  they  have 
and  do  daily  convince  you  of  horrible  heresies,  even  out  of 
your  own  corrupt  vulgar  translation.  Finally,  whosoever  shall 
read  what  Calvin   and  Kemnitius  have  written  against  the 

[^  Ex  hac  Septuaginta  interpretatione  etiam  in  Latinam  linguam 
interpretatum  est,  quod  ecclesise  Latinae  tenent.  Quamvis  non  defuerit 
temporibus  nostris  presbyter  Hieronymus,  homo  doctissimus  et  om- 
nium trium  linguarum  peritus,  qui  non  ex  Graco,  sed  ex  Hebraeo  in 
Latinum  eloquium  easdem  scripturas  converterit.  —  Augustinus,  De 
Civitate  Dei.  Lib.  xviii.  c.  43.  Opera,  Vol.  vii.  p.  525.  See  also  the 
passage  from  Augustine  De  Doctrina  Christiana,  Lib.  ir.  c.  11.  Opera, 
Vol.  I.  pars  1.  pp.  24, 25,  quoted  at  p.  47,  begimiing,  Contra  ignota,  &c.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  7l 

council  of  Trent  for  authorising  that  translation,  shall  plainly 
see  that  tliej  had  something  else  to  allege  against  it,  which 
notlung  at  all  concerneth  their  opinions,  that  be  contrary  to 
the  popish  heresy. 

Martin.    And  concerning  their  wilful  and  heretical  avoiding  thereof  Martin, 
in  their  new  translations,  what  greater  argument  can  there  be  than  this,  2^* 
that  Luther,  who  before  always  had  read  with  the  cathohc  church  and 
with  all  antiquity  these  words  of  St  Paul,  "  Have  not  we  power  to  i  Cor.  ix. 
lead  about  a  woman  a  sister,  as  also  the  rest  of  the  apostles  1"  and  sororem. 
in  St  Peter  these  words,  "  Labour  that  by  good  works  you  may  make      ^^'  ' 
sure  your  vocation  and  election ;"  suddenly,  after  he  had  contrary  to 
his  profession  taken  "  a  mfe"  (as  he  called  her),  and  preached  that  all 
other  votaries  might  do  the  same,  and  that  faith  only  justified,  "good 
works"  were  not  necessary  to  salvation ;  suddenly,  I  say,  after  he  fell  . 
to  these  heresies,  he  began  to  read  and  translate  the  former  scriptures 
accordingly,  thus :  "  Have  not  we  power  to  lead  about  a  sister  a  wipe, 
as  the  rest  of  the  apostles  1"  and,  "  Labour  that  you  may  make  sure 
your  vocation  and  election :"  leaving  out  the  other  words,  "  by  good 
works."    And  so  do  both  the  Calvioists  abroad,  and  our  English  Pro- 
testants at  home  read  and  translate  at  this  day,  because  they  hold  the 
self-same  heresies. 

Fulke.  If  there  be  no  greater  argument,  as  you  confess  Fulke, 
there  can  be  none,  that  their  avoiding  of  this  vulgar  Latin  ' 
is  wilful  and  heretical,  than  this,  that  Luther  defended  his 
marriage,  being  a  votary,  by  that  text  of  1  Cor.  ix.  wherein 
the  apostle  chaUengeth  power  to  lead  about  with  him  a  sister 
to  wife,  which  your  text  hath  mulierem  sororem,  "  a  woman  a 
sister ;"  and  that  to  prove  that  faith  only  justifieth,  and  good 
works  are  not  necessary  to  salvation,  he  left  out  of  the  text  of 
St  Peter  "  good  works/'  by  which  the  apostle  exhorteth  us 
to  make  sure  unto  ourselves  our  vocation  and  election ;  there 
is  none  argument  at  all  of  wilful,  needless,  or  heretical  avoid- 
ing. For  although  the  marriage  of  ecclesiastical  ministers 
generally  is  proved  by  that  scripture,  yet  the  marriage  of 
votaries  specially  is  nothmg  confirmed.  And  for  the  marriage 
of  bishops,  priests  and  deacons,  your  own  translation"  of  1  Tim. 
iii.  and  Tit.  i.,  both  Latin  and  English,  will  warrant  them  to 

[^  It  behoveth  therefore  a  bishop  to  be  irreprehensible,  the  husband 
of  one  wife.  1  Tim.  i.  2.  And  shouldest  ordain  priests  by  cities,  as  I 
also  appointed  thee  ;  if  any  be  without  crime,  the  husband  of  one  wife. 
Titus  i.  5,  6.    Rhemish  Test.  1557.] 

i'i  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREl'ACE. 

be  the  husbands  of  one  wife ;  so  that  every  child  may  see 
that  he  needed  not  for  that  purpose  to  corrupt  the  text,  1.  Cor. 
ix.  And  as  for  the  other  texts,  2  Pet.  i.,  although  this  word, 
"by  good  works,"  is  not  expressed  in  the  most  Greek  copies', 
yet  the  whole  circumstance  of  the  place  giveth  it  necessarily 
to  be  understood ;  and  yet  it  maketh  notliing  against  justifi- 
cation by  faith  only.  For  our  election,  which  is  most  certain 
and  immutable  in  God's  determination,  is  made  certainly  known 
unto  us  by  good  works,  the  fruits  of  justifying  faith,  even 
as  the  eifects  do  necessarily  prove  the  cause  gone  before.  And 
so  doth  Thomas  Matthew's  bible  note,  likewise  the  Bishops' 
bible,  and  the  Geneva  bible ;  for  so  I  had  rather  call  them, 
than  by  the  years  in  which  they  were  once  printed,  which  have 
been  often  printed,  and  perhaps  all  in  some  one  year.  Cover- 
dale's  bible  also  addeth  these  words,  "by  good  works,"  which 
is  read  in  some  Greek  copies.  So  true  it  is  that  you  say, 
we  leave  it  out,  because  we  hold  the  self-same  heresy  :  as  like- 
wise that  you  slander  us  to  hold,  that  good  works  are  not 
necessary  to  salvation;  whereas  we  believe  that  good  works 
are  as  necessary  to  salvation  as  faith,  in  all  them  that  are 
justified  by  faith  only.  But  because  you  are  not  able  to  with- 
stand the  truth  which  we  believe,  you  feign  odious  monsters, 
as  dragons,  centaurs,  hydras,  to  fight  withal  before  the  peoj»le, 
that  you  might  get  the  praise  of  glorious  conquerors,  like  St 
George  on  horseback,  that  in  a  pageant  vanquisheth  an  hide- 
ous dragon  made  of  paper  or  painted  clothes. 

INIartin,  Martin.    So  do  they  in  infinite  places  alter  the  old  text,  which 

pleased  them  well  before  they  were  heretics ;  and  they  do  it  with  brasen 
faces  and  plain  protestation,  having  no  shame  nor  remorse  at  all  in 
fleeing  from  that  which  aU  antiquity  with  one  consent  allowed  and 
embraced  until  their  unliappy  days.  Which  though  it  be  an  evident 
condemnation  of  their  novelties  in  the  sight  of  any  reasonable  man, 
that  hath  any  grace ;  yet  as  I  began  to  admonish  thee,  gentle  reader, 
we  will  not  charge  them  for  altering  the  ancient  approved  Latin  trans- 
lation, because  they  pretend  to  follow  the  Hebrew  and  Greek ;  and  our 
purpose  is  not  here  to  prove  that  they  should  not  follow  the  Hebrew 
and  Greek  that  now  is,  before  the  ancient  approved  Latin  text,  which 
is  done  briefly  already  in  the  preface  to  the  New  Testament. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.    You  were  afraid  behke  to  be  overmatched  in  rail- 

ing, and  therefore   you   thought  to  bear  us  down  at  once 

['  It  is  not  admitted  into  the  text  by  either  Griesbach  or  Scholz.] 


THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  73 

with  a  whole  flood  of  reproachful  slanders ;  and  that  you  utter 
even  with  the  same  face  with  which  you  affirm,  that  all  an- 
tiquity with  one  consent  allowed  and  embraced  your  vulgar 
Latin  text :  for  what  else  you  should  mean  I  cannot  con- 
jecture, seeing  you  say  afterward  you  will  not  charge  us  for 
altering  the  ancient  approved  Latin  translation.  What  say 
you,  Martin?  Doth  all  antiquity  with  one  consent  allow  and 
embrace  your  vulgar  Latin  translation?  What  is  the  cause 
then  that  the  most  of  all  antiquity  of  the  Latin  church  used 
not  your  vulgar  Latin  text  ?  Or  dare  you  join  issue  with  me, 
that  all  the  Latin  doctors  for  400  years  after  Christ  used 
none  other  Latin  translation  but  that  ?  or  that  they  aU  knew 
your  vulgar  Latin  translation?  You  are  never  able  to  prove  it. 
The  Seventy  translation  indeed  was  greatly  esteemed,  and  > 
almost  generally  received  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  churches"^, 
and  out  of  it  were  innumerable  Latin  versions,  as  St  Augus- 
tine affirmeth.  But  your  vulgar  Latin  followeth  it  not  in 
many  places,  as  it  were  easy  to  shew  if  time  and  occasion 
served,  and  I  suppose  you  will  not  deny.  As  for  the  rea- 
sons you  bring  in  the  preface  to  the  New  Testament,  to 
prove  that  we  should  not  follow  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  that 
now  is,  before  that  ancient  approved  text ;  when  they  come 
to  be  considered,  it  shall  appear  how  vain  and  frivolous  they 
are.  But  as  for  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  that  now  is,  [it]  may 
easily  be  proved  to  be  the  same  that  always  hath  been ; 
neither  is  there  any  diversity  in  sentence,  howsoever  some 
copies,  either  through  neghgence  of  the  writer,  or  by  any  other 
occasion,  do  vary  from  that  which  is  commonly  and  most 
generally  received  in  some  letters,  syllables,   or  words. 

Martin.    Neither  will  we  burden  them  for  not  following  the  vulgar  Martin, 
Latin  text,  when  the  same  agreeth  with  most  ancient  Greek  copies  :  '^'^• 
which  notwithstanding  is  great  partiality  in  them,  and  must  needs  be  th/mn'or 
of  an  heretical  wilful  humour,  that  among  the  Greek  copies  themselves  foriikin 
they  reject  that  which  most  agreeth  with  the  vulgar  Latin  text,  in  the  Greek 

,  ^  *  copies  that 

places  of  controversies.     Yet  will  we  not,  I  say,  neither  in  this  case  ^^^^ "'.'"' 
lay  falsehood  and  corruption  to  their  charge,  because  they  pretend  to  approved 
translate  the  common  Greek  text  of  the  New  Testament,  that  is,  one  th'oighThis 
certain  copy.    But  here  at  the  least  let  them  shew  their  fidelity,  and  thetrlncre- 
that  they  be  true  and  exact  translators.     For  here  only  shall  they  be  tlaUtyr"^' 
examined  and  called  to  account. 

[^  August.  De  Civit.  Dei.  Lib.  xviii.  c.  43.  Opera,  Vol.  vii.  p.  843.] 



FuLKE,  Fulke.     In  translation  we  folloAv  the  common,  usual,  and 

printed  copies,  as  you  do  in  your  translation ;  and  yet  you 
know  there  be  as  many,  yea,  ten  times  as  many  diverse  read- 
ings m  the  Latin  as  are  in  the  Greek :  witness  hereof  the 
bible  printed  at  Antwerp  by  Christopher  Plantine,  1567,  of 
Hentenius'  castigation ;  where  the  margins  almost  of  every 
leaf  be  full  of  diverse  readings,  obehsks,  asterisks,  stigmates, 
signifying  the  variety  that  is  in  many  copies,  by  adding,  de- 
tractmg,  changmg. 

Bib???e  opt.         The  same  is  confessed  by  Arias  Montanus. 

pr et'.  sc.'hb.  Liudauus  likewise  acknowledgeth  as  much. 

Of  that  which  you  say,  we  reject  that  which  best  agreeth 
with  the  vulgar  Latin  in  places  of  controversy,  you  bring 
none  example.  But  that  among  your  diverse  readings  you 
reject  that  which  agreeth  best  with  the  Hebrew  and  with 
the  Greek  in  places  of  controversy,  I  will  give  you  an  ex- 
ample. Gen.  iii.  15.,  where  the  Hebrew  truth  teacheth,  that 
the  seed  of  the  woman  shall  break  the  serpent's  head,  and 
the  Greek  translateth  the  pronoun  in  the  masculine  gender, 
(he)  meaning  Christ,  and  some  ancient  copies  of  your  vulgar 
Latin  have  ipse;  you  nevertheless  follow  that  blasphemous 
corruption,  that  in  these  latter  times  hath  been  received  in 
your  vulgar  Latin  bibles,  and  read  still  in  your  text  ipsa,  she; 
which  though  you  would  wrest  blasphemously  to  the  virgin 
Mary,  which  is  proper  to  Christ,  cannot  by  the  circumstance 
of  the  place  be  aptly  referred  to  any  but  to  Eve. 

Martin,  Martin.    And  if  they  follow  sincerely  their  Greek  and  Hebrew  text, 

which  they  profess  to  foUow,  and  which  they  esteem  the  only  authen- 
ttieni  for^for-  ^^^^  *^^*'  ^^  f^^  ^^  accuse  them  not  of  heretical  corruption.    But  if 
fai'se"trans''-     ^*  ^^^^  ^^  evidently  proved,  that  they  shrink  from  the  same  also,  and 
ownVebrew  t^^^^s^^t'^    another  thing,   and  that  wilfully  and  of  full  intention  to 
and  Greek      countenance  their    false  religion    and  wicked   opinions,    making   the 
scriptures  to  speak  as  they  list;  then  we  trust  the  indifferent  reader, 
for  his  own  soul's  sake,  will  easily  see  and  conclude,  that  they  have  no 
fear  of  God,  no  reverence  of  the  scriptures,  no  conscience  to  deceive 
their  readers :  he  will  perceive  that  the  scriptures  make  against  them, 
which  they  so  pervert   and   corrupt  for  their  purpose;  that  neither 
the  Hebrew  nor  Greek  text  is  for  them,  which  they  dare  not  trans- 
late truly  and  sincerely;   that  their  cause  is  naught,  wliich  needeth 
such  foul  shifts;  that  they  must  needs  know  all  this,  and  therefore 
do  wilfully  against  their  conscience,  and  consequently  are  obstinate 



Fulke.  We  crave  no  pardon,  if  it  can  be  proved  that  Fulke, 
we  have  wilfully  translated  another  thing  than  is  contained 
in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  to  maintain  any  false  rehgion  or 
wicked  opinion.  Provided  always,  that  if  any  translator,  or 
all  the  translators,  have  ignorantly  erred  in  misunderstanding 
any  word  or  phrase  of  the  Hebrew  or  Greek  text,  that  if  it 
may  be  plainly  shewed  unto  them,  they  acknowledging  the 
fault,  they  may  not  be  charged  with  heretical  corruption,  from 
which  it  is  certain  their  intention  was  most  free. 

Martin.    And  the  more  to  understand  tlieir  misery  and  wretched-  Martin, 
ness,  before  we  enter  to  examine  their  translations,  mark  and  gather  ^^' 
of  all  that  which  I  have  said  in  this  preface,  their  manifold  flights  and 
jumps  from  one  shift  to  another,  and  how  catholic  writers  have  pursued 
and  chased  them,  and  followed  them,  and  driven  them  even  to  this  ' 
extreme  refuge  and  seely  covert  of  false  translation,  where  also  they 
must  of  necessity  yield,  or  devise  some  new  evasion,  which  we  can- 
not yet  imagine. 

Fulke.  Hitherto  I  hope  the  indifferent  reader  will  con-  Fulkk, 
fess,  that  you  have  driven  us  to  no  jumps  nor  shifts,  but  ^ 
only  uttered  your  own  malicious  and  unlearned  quarrels.  And 
how  popish  writers  have  pursued  and  chased  us  to  extreme 
refuge,  and  seely  covert  of  false  translation,  let  it  appear  by 
the  learned  answers^  of  Mr  Jewell,  Mr  Home,  Mr  Nowell, 
Mr  Bridges,  Mr  Calfhill,  and  others ;  that  I  speak  notliing  of 

P  For  instance,  Jewel's  Defence  of  the  Apology  of  the  Church  of 
England,  contairung  an  answer  to  a  certaia  book  lately  set  forth  by 
Mr  Harding.  Lond.  1564.  Jewel's  Answer  to  Mr  Harding's  book, 
entitled  a  detection  of  certain  errors.  Lond.  1565.  Jewel's  Reply  to 
Mr  Harding's  Answer.  Lond.  1566. — This  was  translated  into  Latin 
by  Whitaker. 

Letters  between  Jewel  and  Dr  Henry  Cole. 

Rastel's  Return  of  Untruths,  answered  by  Jewel. — This  work  has 
hitherto  escaped  the  notice  of  Jewel's  biographers. 

Feckenham's  Declaration  of  scruples  and  stays  of  conscience  toucliing 
the  oath  of  supremacy,  answered  by  Home,  bishop  of  Winchester, 

Nowell's  Reproof  of  a  book  entitled  a  proof  of  certain  articles  in 
religion,  denied  by  Master  Jewel,  set  forth  by  Thos.  Dorman.  NoweU's 
Reproof  of  Mr  Dorman's  Proof  continued. 

Nowell's  Confutation  of  Dorman's  last  book,  entitled  a  Defence 

Bridges'  Reply  to  the  Horn-blast  of  Thos.  Stapleton. 

CaKhill's  Answer  to  John  Martiall's  Treatise  of  the  Cross.] 




The  divers 
shifts  and 
flights  that 
the  protest- 
ants  are 
driv  n  unto 
by  the 
cathohes,  as 
it  were  the 
jumps  and 
turnings  of 
an  hare  be- 
fore the 


mine  own  simple  labom-s,  who  being  one  of  the  meanest, 
having  confuted  ten  or  twelve  of  your  popish  treatises,  can 
receive  no  reply  of  any  man,  but  only  of  poor  Bristow,  to 
whom  in  this  respect  I  confess  myself  more  beholding  than 
to  all  the  papists  beside,  saving  that  I  have  rejoined  to  liim 
almost  two  years  ago,  and  yet  I  hear  not  of  his  answer. 

Martin.  First,  we  are  wont  to  make  this  offer  (as  we  think)  most 
reasonable  and  indifferent :  that  forasmuch  as  the  scriptures  are  diversely- 
expounded  of  us  and  of  them,  they  neither  be  tied  to  our  interpretation, 
nor  we  to  theirs;  but  to  put  it  to  the  arbitrement  and  judgment  of  the 
ancient  fathers,  of  general  councils,  of  universal  custom  of  times  and 
places  in  the  catholic  church.  No,  say  they,  we  will  be  our  own 
judges  and  interpreters,  or  follow  Luther,  if  we  be  Lutherans;  Calvin, 
if  we  be  Calvinists;  and  so  forth. 

FulJce.  For  expounding  of  the  scriptures,  we  will  not 
refuse  the  arbitrement  and  judgment  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
of  general  councils,  of  universal  custom  of  times  and  places 
in  the  catholic  church ;  for  this  you  say  is  your  offer,  which 
was  never  refused  of  us,  though  you  most  falsely  affirm, 
that  we  say  we  will  be  our  own  judges  and  interpreters,  or 
follow  Luther,  if  we  be  Lutherans ;  Calvin,  if  we  be  Cal- 
vinists, &c.  Wlio  ever  said  so,  you  shameless  slanderer  ? 
What  have  you  differing  from  us,  wherein  you  have  the 
judgment  of  the  ancient  fathers,  of  general  councils,  of 
universal  custom  of  times  and  places  in  the  catholic  church  ? 
Unless  perhaps  you  mean  some  wretched  sopliistry,  by  dis- 
joining these  that  you  here  seem  to  join  together.  And  if 
you  so  do,  we  must  first  ask  you,  whether  you  yom^selves 
in  all  expositions  of  the  scriptm^es  will  stand  to  the  ar- 
bitrement of  every  ancient  father,  or  of  every  general  council, 
or  of  any  custom  in  any  time  or  place?  I  know,  and  you 
cannot  deny  it,  that  you  will  stand  to  nothing,  that  is  not 
allowed  by  your  pope,  though  fathers,  councils,  custom,  time 
or  place,  or  all  the  world  be  against  it,  yea,  the  manifest 
scripture,  which  is  so  plain  that  it  needeth  no  exposition  :  as 
the  commandment  against  images  in  religion,  Theodoret, 
Gelasius,  Vigilius,  Chrysostora  against  transubstantiation, 
Epiphanius  against  images,  the  sixth  council  of  Constan- 
tinople for  condemnirig  the  pope  of  heresy,  the  councils  of 
Constance  and  Basil  for  deposing  the  popes,  and  decreeing 
that  the  council    is  above  the    pope,  and    many  other  like 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  77 

matters  beside,  in  which  you  go  clearly  from  the  consent  of 
all  antiquity  for  600  years,  as  the  bishop  of  Sarum  hath 
made  plain  demonstration,  and  you  are  not  able  to  reply. 

Martin.  This  being  of  itself  a  shameless  shift,  unless  it  be  better  Martin, 
coloured,  the  next  is  to  say,  that  the  scriptures  are  easy  and  plain,  and 
sufficient  of  themselves  to  determine  every  matter,  and  therefore  they 
wUl  be  tried  by  the  scriptures  only.  We  ai-e  content,  because  they  will 
needs  have  it  so,  and  we  allege  unto  them  the  books  of  Tobit,  Eccle- 
siasticus,  Machabees.  No,  say  they ;  we  admit  none  of  these  for  scrip- 
ture. ^VTiy  so  ?  Are  they  not  approved  canonical  by  the  same  authority 
of  the  church,  of  ancient  councils  and  fathers,  that  the  other  books  are  ? 
No  matter,  say  they,  Luther  admitteth  them  not ;  Calvm  doth  not 
allow  them. 

Fulhe.  That  the  scriptures  are  plain  and  easy  to  be  Fulke, 
understood,  of  them  that  use  the  ordinary  means  to  come  to 
it,  for  all  doctrine  necessary  to  be  known,  and  sufficient  to 
determine  every  matter,  the  Holy  Ghost  himself  doth  testify, 
2  Tim.  iii.  and  some  of  the  ancient  fathers  also  do  bear  wit- 
ness, as  Augustine,  de  Doct.  Christ,  lib.  2,  Clirysostom,  in  Gen. 
hom.  13,    de  verb.  Esai.    Vidi  dominum,  Sj-c.  horn.  2. 

If  therefore  you  had  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
you  would  be  content  to  be  tried  by  the  scriptures,  for  re- 
verence you  owed  to  God's  most  holy  and  perfect  writings ; 
and  not  because  we  will  have  it  so,  who  are  content  in 
many  controversies  to  be  tried  by  the  judgment  of  the 
ancient  fathers,  or  general  councils,  or  miiversal  custom  of 
times  and  places ;  and  m  all  controversies,  wherein  all  the 
ancient  fathers,  all  councils,  and  universal  custom  of  all 
times  and  places  do  consent,  if  any  think  such  things  can  be 
brought  against  us,  as  it  is  falsely  and  sophistically  bragged. 
But  whereas  we  refuse  the  books  of  Tobit,  Ecclesiasticus, 
Machabees,  for  canonical  scripture,  it  is  not  (as  you  say 
ridiculously)  because  Luther  and  Calvin  admitted  them  not, 
but  because  they  are  contrary  to  the  canonical  scriptures, 
and  were  never  received  of  the  church  of  Israel  for  canonical, 
nor  of  the  cathohc  church  of  Christ  for  more  than  400  years 
after  Christ,  as  I  have  shewed  before. 

Martin.    Well,  let  us  go  forward  in  their  own  dance.    You  allow  at  Martin, 
the  least  the  Jews'  canonical  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  that  is,  all 
that  are  extant  in  the  Hebrew  bible,  and  all  of  the  New  Testament 
without  exception.     Yea,  that  we  do.     In  these  books  then,  will  you  be 


7o  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

tried  by  the  vulgar  ancient  Latin  bible,  only  used  in  all  the  west  church 
above  a  thousand  years  ?  No.  Will  you  be  tried  by  the  Greek  bible 
of  the  Septuagint  interpreters,  so  renowned  and  authorised  in  our 
Saviour's  own  speeches,  in  the  evangelists'  and  apostles'  writings,  in  the 
whole  Greek  church  evermore?  No.  How  then  will  you  be  tried? 
They  answer,  only  by  the  Hebrew  bible  that  now  is,  and  as  now  it  is 
pointed  with  vowels.  Will  you  so  ?  and  do  you  think  that  only 
the  true  authentical  Hebrew,  which  the  Holy  Ghost  did  first  put  into 
the  pens  of  those  sacred  writers?  We  do  think  it  (say  they),  and 
esteem  it  the  only  authentical  and  true  scripture  of  the  Old  Testament. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     Where  so  many  of  youi'  own  popish  writers  do 

accuse  your  vulgar  Latin  text  of  innumerable  corruptions,  what 
reason  is  there,  that  we  should  follow  that  translation  only ; 
especially  seeing  God  hath  given  us  knowledge  of  the  tongues, 
that  we  may  resort  to  the  fountains  themselves,  as  St  Au- 
gustine exhorteth  ?  As  for  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Sep- 
tuagint, from  which  yom'  own  vulgar  Latin  varieth,  (although 
we  reverence  it  for  the  antiquity,  and  use  it  for  interpreta- 
tion of  some  obscure  places  in  the  Hebrew,)  why  should  you 
require  us  to  be  tried  thereby,  which  will  not  be  tried  by 
it  yourselves  ?  If  I  were  as  captious  as  you  are  with  John 
Keltridge  about  the  Greek  bible  of  the  Septuagint  interpre- 
ters, I  might  make  sport  with  you,  as  you  do  with  him :  but 
I  acknowledge  your  synecdoche^  that  you  mean  the  Old  Tes- 
tament only,  whereas  the  word  bible  is  commonly  taken  for 
both.  But  to  the  purpose :  we  acknowledge  the  text  of  the 
Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  Chaldee,  (for  in  the  Chaldee 
tongue  were  some  parts  of  it  written,)  as  it  is  now  printed 
with  vowels,  to  be  the  only  fountain,  out  of  which  we  must 
draw  the  pure  truth  of  the  scriptures  for  the  Old  Testament, 
adjoining  herewith  the  testimony  of  the  Mazzoreth,  where 
any  diversity  of  points,  letters,  or  words,  is  noted  to  have 
been  in  sundry  ancient  copies,  to  discern  that  which  is  proper 
to  the  whole  context,  from  that  which  by  error  of  the  writers 
or  printers  hath  been  brought  into  any  copy,  old  or  new. 

Martin,  Martin.    We  ask  them  again.  What  say  you  then  to  that  place  of 

^'  the  psalm,  where  in  the  Hebrew  it  is  thus,  "  As  a  Hon  my  hands  and 

nKD  my  feet,"  for  that  which  in  truth  should  be  thus,   "They  digged  or 

pierced  my  hands  and  i?iy  feet ;"  being  an  evident  prophecy  of  Christ's 
nailing  to  the  cross  ?  There  indeed  (say  they)  we  follow  not  the  He- 
brew, but  the  Greek  text.  Sometimes  then  you  follow  the  Greek,  and 
not  the  Hebrew  only.    And  what  if  the  same  Greek  text  make  for  the 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  79 

catholics,  as  in  these  places  for  example,  "  I  have  inclined  my  heart 
to  keep  thy  justifications  for  reward,"  and  "  Redeem  thy  sins  with 
alms  ;•'  might  we  not  obtain  here  the  like  favour  at  your  hands  for  the 
Greek  text,  specially  when  the  Hebrew  doth  not  disagree?  No,  say 
they,  nor  in  no  other  place  where  the  Greek  is  never  so  plain,  if  the 
Hebrew  word  at  the  least  may  be  any  otherwise  interpreted,  and  drawn 
to  another  signification. 

Fulke.  We  say  to  you  first,  that  you  have  falsely  pointed  Fulke, 
the  Hebrew  word  in  the  margin  ;  for  aU  the  printed  books 
that  ever  I  have  seen,  as  Bomberg,  both  in  fol/io  and 
quarto,  Stephanus,  Basil,  Plantine,  Arias  Montanus,  Com- 
plutensis,  all  place  camels  under  ca'ph,  where  you  make  patacli. 
But  perhaps  yom'  Hebrew  is  most  out  of  Munster's  dictionary, 
where  it  is  pointed  as  you  make  it.  But  for  answer  to  your  " 
question,  we  say,  that  there  is  a  double  testimony  of  the 
Mazzorites  to  prove,  that  in  the  most  ancient  and  best 
corrected  copies  the  Hebrew  was  cam,  "they  have  digged  or 
pierced":  this  is  testified  not  only  by  our  translators,  but 
also  by  Johannes  Isaac,  your  own  rabbin,  against  Lindanus, 
a  prelate  of  yours.  And  tliis  the  authors  of  the  Complutensian 
edition  do  acknowledge ;  for  thus  they  have  pointed  it,  caru,  ii><3 
where  is  nothing  but  the  redundance  of  alepli  (which  is  un- 
derstood in  every  camets)  differing  from  the  usual  reading 
and  declining  of  the  verb  cardh,  that  signifieth  "  to  pierce  or  n-ia 
dig."  Again,  where  it  is  read  otherwise,  if  it  be  rightly 
pointed,  as  it  is  in  Arias  Montanus,  caari,  it  cannot  sig-  f^^^a 
nify  sxcut  leo,  "  as  a  lion,"  as  both  the  Mazzorites  do  teach,  "'^ 
and  Johannes  Isaac,  a  grammarian,  out  of  them  by  the  points 
and  the  note  over  iod  doth  plainly  demonstrate.  For  what 
should  shurech  sound  in  iodf  or  if  you  would  contend  it 
should  be  daghes,  to  what  purpose  should  it  be  in  iod,  if 
the  word  should  signify  "as  a  lion"?  Therefore,  how- 
soever this  variety  of  copies  came,  either  by  negligence  of 
some  writers,  or  by  corruption  of  the  Jews,  we  have  suf- 
ficient warrant  for  the  ancient  and  true  reading,  which  the 
Greek  translator  did  follow,  which  also  was  in  St  Jerome's 
copy ;  otherwise  he  would  not  have  translated  out  of  the 
Hebrew  fixerunt,  "  they  have  pierced."  Therefore  Eabbi  Jo- 
seph, which  made  the  Chaldee  paraphrase  upon  the  Psalter, 
laboured  to  express  both  the  copies,  as  well  that  which  hath 
plainly  "they  have  pierced,"  as  that  which  hath  it  corruptly, 




as  though  it  spake  of  a  Hon,  and  yet  cannot  rightly  be  so 
translated,  because  the  points  are  imperfect  even  for  that 
reading.  Therefore  he  hath  said,  nikethin  Jieich  cheariah, 
"  they  have  indented  and  pierced  like  a  hon  my  hands  and 
my  feet,"  as  it  is  in  the  Venice  print  of  Daniel  Bomberg,  al- 
though Arias  Montanus,  in  his  bible,  have  no  more  but 
nachethin,  which  he  translateth,  "  biting  my  hands  and  my 
feet."  I  have  played  the  fool  to  utter  these  matters  in  the 
mother  tongue  to  ignorant  men,  that  can  make  no  trial  of 
them;  but  you  have  not  only  given  me  example,  but  also 
enforced  me  with  yom*  insoluble  question  (as  you  thought), 
by  one  word  somewhat  out  of  fi'ame,  to  overthrow  the  whole 
Hebrew  text.  But  you  are  to  be  pardoned,  for  that  you 
follow  yom*  Mr  Lindanus  herein,  who  hath  noticing  else  in 
effect  to  quarrel  against  the  Hebrew  text,  but  this ;  and 
therefore  he  repeateth  it  in  many  places,  to  make  greater 
shew  of  it,  as  you  do.  In  other  places,  where  the  Hebrew 
word  hath  divers  significations,  who  shall  forbid  us  to  choose 
that  which  is  most  agreeable  to  the  circumstance  of  the 
text,  and  to  the  analogy  or  rule  of  faith? 




Pra?fat.  in 

Martin.  We  reply  again  and  say  unto  them,  Wliy  ?  Is  not  the 
credit  of  those  Septuagint  interpreters,  who  themselves  were  Jews, 
and  best  learned  in  their  own  tongue,  and  (as  St  Augustine  often,  and 
other  ancient  fathers  say)  were  inspired  with  the  Holy  Ghost  in  trans- 
lating the  Hebrew  bible  into  Greek, — is  not  their  credit,  I  say,  in 
determining  and  defining  the  signification  of  the  Hebrew  word,  far 
greater  than  yours?  No.  Is  not  the  authority  of  all  the  ancient 
fathers,  both  Greek  and  Latin,  that  followed  them,  equivalent  in  this 
case  to  your  judgment?  No,  say  they;  but  because  we  find  some 
ambiguity  in  the  Hebrew,  we  will  take  the  advantage,  and  we  will 
determine  and  limit  it  to  our  purpose. 

Fulhe.  St  Jerome  abimdantly  answereth  this  cavil,  de- 
nying that  supposed  inspiration,  and  deriding  the  fable  of 
their  70  cells',  (wliich  yet  pleased  Augustine  greatly,)  yea, 
calling  in  question,  whether  any  more  were  translated  by 
them,  than  the  five  books  of  Moses ;  because  Aris- 
taeus,  a  writer  in  Ptolemy's  time,  and  after  him  Josephus, 
make  mention  of  no  more.  The  same  cause  therefore,  that 
moved  St  Jerome  to  translate  out  of  the  Hebrew,  moveth 
us :  whose  translation,  if  we  had  it  sound  and  perfect,  might 
['  See  before,  p.  52.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  81 

much  further  us  for  the  same  purpose :  although  for  the 
signification  of  the  Hebrew  words  we  require  no  more  credit, 
than  that  which  all  they  that  be  learned  in  the  Hebrew 
tongue,  must  be  forced  to  yield  unto  us.  And  seemg  your 
vidgar  Latin  departeth  from  the  Septuagint  interpretation, 
even  in  the  books  of  Moses,  which  (if  any  be  theirs)  may 
most  rightly  be  accounted  theirs,  because  it  is  certain  they 
translated  them,  although  it  be  not  certain  whether  they 
translated  the  rest :  with  what  equity  do  you  require  us  to 
credit  them,  wliich  your  own  vulgar  translation  affirmeth  to 
have  translated  amiss,  as  I  have  shewn  before  in  the  example 
of  Cainan's  generation?  Another  example  you  have  in  the 
4th  of  Genesis,  Nonne  si  bene  egeris  recipies,  8ic.  "  If  thou 
shalt  do  well,  shalt  thou  not  receive  ?  but  if  thou  shalt  do' 
evil,  straightway  thy  sins  shalt  be  present  in  the  doors." 
The  Greek  text  hath,  Ovk  civ  6p6m  TrpoaeveyKr]^,  &c.  "Not 
if  thou  hast  rightly  offered,  but  thou  hast  not  rightly  di- 
vided ;  hast  thou  sinned  ?  be  still."  Where  yom*  translation 
Cometh  much  nearer  to  the  Hebrew,  as  might  be  shewed  in 
very  many  examples.  As  for  the  ancient  fathers'  credit  of 
the  Greek  church,  and  the  Latin  that  followed  them,  if  our 
judgment  alone  be  not  equivalent  unto  them,  yet  let  these 
ancient  fathers,  Origen  and  Jerome, — ^that  thought  them  not 
sufficient  to  be  followed,  and  therefore  gathered  or  framed 
other  interpretations, — let  their  judgment,  I  say,  joining  with 
ours,  discharge  us  of  tliis  fond  and  envious  accusation. 

Martin.    Again,  we  condescend  to  their  wilfulness,  and  say:  What  iNrAnxTN, 
if  the  Hebrew  be  not  ambiguous,  but  so  plain  and  certain  to  signify  one  "*"• 
thing,  that  it  cannot  be  plainer  ?    As,  "  Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  soul  Psal.  xv. 
in  hell;"  which  proveth  for  us,  that  Christ  in  soul  descended  into  hell,  s'^j^^^  ^,55 
Is  not  the  one  Hebrew  word  as  proper  for  soul,  as  anima  in   Latin?       •  '     '•"•■ 
the  other,  as  proper  and  usual  for  hell,  as  infernus  in  Latin  ?     Here 
then  at  the  least  will  you  yield  ?     No,  say  they,  not  here  neither ;  for 
Beza  telleth  us,  that  the  word  which  commonly  and  usually  signifieth 
"  soul,"  yet  for  a  purpose,  if  a  man  will  strain,  it  may  signify  not  only 
"  body,"  but  also  "  carcase,"  and  so  he  translateth  it.     But  Beza  (say 
we),  being  admonished  by  his  friends,  corrected  it  in  his  later  edition. 
Yea,  say  they,  he  was  content  to  change  his  translation,  but  not  his 
opinion  concerning  the  Hebrew  word,  as  himself  protesteth. 

Fulhe.      You   have   chosen  a  text  for  example,   wherein  Fulke, 
is  least  colour  (except  it  be  with  the  unlearned)  of  an  bun- 


82  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

dred.  For  whereas  you  ask,  whether  nephesh  be  not  as 
proper  for  soul  as  anima  in  Latin,  and  sheol  for  hell  as 
infernus  in  Latin  ;  I  utterly  deny  both  the  one  and  the  other. 
For  nephesh  is  properly  the  life,  and  sheol  the  grave  or  pit, 
though  it  may  sometimes  be  taken  for  hell,  which  is  a  con- 
sequent of  the  death  of  the  ungodly,  as  nepliesh  is  taken 
for  person,  or  one's  self,  or  (as  it  is  sometimes)  for  a  dead 
carcase.  Yea,  there  be  that  hold,  that  it  is  never  taken 
for  the  reasonable  immortal  soul  of  a  man,  as  anima  is, 
specially  of  ecclesiastical  writers.  That  Beza  translated  the 
Greek  of  the  New  Testament  after  the  sifrnification  of  the 
Hebrew  words,  although  it  was  true  in  sense,  yet  in  mine 
opinion  it  was  not  proper  in  words  ;  and  therefore  he  liim- 
self  hath  corrected  it  in  his  latter  editions,  as  you  confess : 
he  hath  not  changed  his  opinion  concerning  the  Hebrew  : 
the  reason  is,  because  it  is  grounded  upon  manifest  texts  of 
scripture,  which  he  citeth,  Levit.  xix.  27,  and  xxi.  1,  and 
11.  Num.  v.  2,  and  ix.  10.  In  the  first  place  your  own 
vulgar  Latin  translation  for  lanephesh  turneth  mortuo :  you 
shall  not  cut  your  flesh  for  one  that  is  dead.  In  the  second 
place  your  vulgar  Latin  hath,  Ne  non  contaminetur  sacerdos 
in  mortihus  ;  and,  Adomnem  mortuum  non  ingredietur  oninino : 
Let  not  the  priest  be  defiled  with  the  deaths  of  liis  coun- 
trymen ;  and,  The  high  priest  shaU  not  enter  in  to  any  dead 
jwf:b-2  byi  body  at  all :  where  the  Hebrew  is  knephesh,  and  nt^23~b5  b^ 
K3»*  itb  m  ^^''  ^^  ^'^'  ^^  ^^^^  third  place  your  vulgar  Latin  readeth 
■^  •  ■■  pollut'usque  est  super  mortuo,  they  shall  cast  out  him  that  is 
vvT  polluted  by  touching  a  dead  carcase ;  where  the  Hebrew  is 
lanephesh.  In  the  first  place  your  vulgar  Latin  hath  indeed 
anima,  but  in  the  same  sense,  that  it  had  before  mortuo :  for 
the  text  is  of  liim  that  is  unclean  by  touching  any  dead 
body,  which  in  Hebrew  is  nephesh.  How  say  you  now,  is  the 
Hebrew  word  as  proper  for  soul  as  anima  in  Latin  ? — except 
you  will  say,  the  Latin  word  anima  doth  properly  signify 
a  dead  body.  Hath  not  Beza  good  reason  to  retain  his  opinion 
concerning  the  Hebrew  word,  when  he  hath  the  authority  of 
your  own  vulgar  translation  ?  You  that  note  such  jumps 
and  shifts  in  us,  whither  will  you  leap  to  save  your  honesty? 
Will  you  say,  the  Hebrew  text  is  corrupted  since  your  trans- 
lation was  drawn  out  of  it  ?  The  Seventy  interpreters 
then  will  cry  out  against  you :    for    they  with  one  mouth, 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  83 

in  all  these  places,  for  the  Hebrew  word  nepliesTi  render  the 
usual  signification  y^rv^v^  adding  in  the  xxi.  of  Lev.  11, 
T€T€XevTTjKv7a,  which  either  you  must  translate  a  dead  body, 
or  you  shall  call  it  absurdly  a  dead  soul.  Would  any  man 
thmk  to  have  found  in  you  either  such  gross  ignorance,  or 
shameful  neghgence,  or  intolerable  malice  against  the  truth, 
that,  Beza  sending  you  to  the  places,  either  you  would  not 
or  you  could  not  examine  them ;  or  if  you  did  examine 
them,  that  you  would  notwithstanding  thus  mahciously, 
against  your  own  knowledge  and  conscience,  rail  against 
him  ?  You  make  us  to  say,  if  a  man  will  strain  the  word, 
it  may  signify  not  only  body,  but  also  carcase.  What  say 
you  ?  did  Moses  strain  the  word  to  that  signification  ?  You 
said  before,  that  we  were  at  the  jumps  and  turnings  of  an 
hare  before  the  hounds;  such  mighty  hunters  you  are,  and 
we  such  fearful  hares  before  you.  I  am  not  skilful  in  the 
terms  of  hunting,  but  in  plain  English  I  will  speak  it,  that  if 
all  the  traitorous  wolves  and  foxes  that  be  in  the  kennel  at 
Rhemes,  would  do  their  best  to  save  your  credit  in  this 
section,  nay,  in  this  whole  preface,  they  shall  never  be  able 
to  maintain  their  own,  with  any  indifferent  reader. 

Martin.  Well  then,  doth  it  like  you  to  read  thus,  according  to  Martin, 
Beza's  translation,  "Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  carcase  in  the  grave ?"'^'^- 
No;  we  are  content  to  alter  the  word  carcase,  (which  is  not  a  seemly 
word  for  our  Saviour's  body,)  and  yet  we  are  loth  to  say  soul;  but  if 
we  might,  we  would  say  rather  "life,"  "person,"  as  appeareth  in  the 
margin  of  our  bibles:  but  as  for  the  Hebrew  word  that  signifieth 
hell,  though  the  Greek  and  Latin  bible  throughout,  the  Greek  and 
Latin  fathers  in  all  their  writings,  as  occasion  serveth,  do  so  read  it 
and  understand  it,  yet  wiU  we  never  so  translate  it;  but  for  "hell" 
we  will  say  "grave,"  in  all  such  places  of  scripture  as  might  infer 
limbus  patrum,  if  we  should  translate  "  hell."  These  are  their  shifts, 
and  turnings,  and  windings,  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Fulke.  I  have  shewed  you  before,  that  in  the  New  Fulke, 
Testament  we  like  better  to  translate  according  to  the^''* 
proper  and  usual  signification  of  the  Greek  word.  But  the 
Hebrew  word  in  the  Old  Testament  may  be  translated,  accord- 
ing to  the  circumstance  of  the  place,  life,  person,  self,  yea, 
or  dead  body,  and  in  some  place  perhaps  carcase.  You 
follow  us  very  near,  to  seek  advantage  of  the  English  word 
carcase,  which  commonly  is  taken  in  contempt,  and  therefore 


84  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

we  would  not  use  it,  speaking  of  the  body  of  our  Saviour 
Christ,  when  it  was  dead.  But  you  hunt  yourself  out  of 
breath,    when  you  would   bring   the  same  contempt  to  the 

Cadaver.  Latin  word  cadaver,  which  Beza  used.  For  cadaver  sig- 
nifieth  generally  a  dead  body  of  man  or  beast,  and  by  your 
vulgar  Latin  translator  is  used  for  the  dead  bodies  of  sacri- 
fices,  of  saints  and  holy  men,   as  indifferently  as  for  carrion 

TO  TTTMfia.  of  beasts,  or  carcases  of  evil  men :  namely,  in  Job  xxxix,  33, 
"Wheresoever  the  dead  body  is,  thither  wUl  the  eagle  resort;" 
which  similitude  our  Saviour  Christ  applieth  to  himself,  Matt. 
xxiv.  28,  "  Wheresoever  the  dead  body  is,  thither  will  the 
eagles  be  gathered ;"  where  he  compareth  himself  to  the  dead 
body,  and  the  faithful  to  the  eagles. 

Now  concerning  the  other  Hebrew  word,  which  you 
say  signifieth  hell,  because  the  Greek  and  vulgar  Latin  in- 
terpreter do  so  translate  it :  when  just  occasion  shall  be 
given  afterward,  cap.  vii.,  I  will  shew  that  it  properly  signi- 
fieth a  grave,  pit,  or  place  for  dead  bodies;  and  that  in  this 
place  of  the  xvi.  psalm  it  must  needs  so  signify,  not  only 
the  latter  part  of  the  verse,  expressing  in  other  words  that 
which  was  said  in  the  former,  but  also  the  apostle's  proving 
out  of  it  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  do  sufficiently  declare. 
If  you  have  no  place  therefore  in  the  scriptm'es,  to  prove 
your  limhus  patrum,  but  where  the  Holy  Ghost  speaketh 
of  the  death  and  burial  of  the  fathers,  no  marvel  though 
you  must  strain  the  Hebrew  word,  which  properly  signifieth 
grave,  and  the  Greek  word,  which  properly  signifieth  a  dark 
place,  and  especially  the  Latin,  which  signifieth  generally  a 
low  place :  none  of  all  the  three  words  signifying  hell,  as  we 
commonly  understand  the  word  hell,  properly  and  only,  but 
by  a  figure,  where  mention  is  made  of  the  death  of  the 
ungodly,  whose  reward  is  in  hell.  These  be  the  poor  shifts, 
turnings  and  windings,  that  you  have  to  wreath  in  those 
fables  of  limhus  patrum  and  purgatory,  which  the  church 
of  God  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  unto  the  coming 
of  Christ  never  heard  of,  nor  many  hundred  years  after 
Christ,  until  the  Montanists,  or  such  like  heathenish  heretics, 
brought  in  those  fantasies. 

Martin,  Martin.    In  the  New  Testament,  we  ask  them,  will  you  be  tried 

by  the  ancient  Latin  translation,  which  is  the  text  of  the  fathers  and 
the  whole  church  ?     No ;  but  we  appeal  to  the  Greek.     AV^hat  Greek  ? 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  85 

say  we  ;  for  there  be  sundry  copies,  and  the  best  of  them  (as  Beza 
confesseth)  agree  with  the  said  ancient  Latin.  For  example,  in  St  Peter's 
words,  "  Labour  that  by  good  works  you  may  make  sure  your  vocation  2  Pet.  i. 
and  election,"  doth  this  Greek  copy  please  you  ?  No,  say  they ;  we 
appeal  to  that  Greek  copy  which  hath  not  these  words,  "by  good 
works ;"  for  otherwise  we  should  grant  the  merit  and  efficacy  of  good 
works  toward  salvation.  And  generally,  to  tell  you  at  once,  by  what 
Greek  we  will  be  tried,  we  like  best  the  vulgar  Greek  text  of  the  New 
Testament,  which  is  most  common  and  in  every  man's  hands. 

Fulke.  "We  need  not  appeal  to  the  Greek,  for  any  Fulke, 
thing  you  bring  out  of  the  vulgar  Latin  against  us.  As  ^^' 
for  that  text,  2  Pet.  i.  "Laboui'  that  by  good  works,"  &c.,  I  ' 
have  answered  before  in  the  36th  section.  We  hke  well  the 
Latin,  or  that  Greek  copy  wliich  hath  those  words,  "by  good 
works;"  for  we  must  needs  understand  them  where  they  are 
not  expressed :  and  therefore  you  do  impudently  believe  us 
to  say  they  do  not  please  us.  Calvin  upon  that  text  saith: 
NonnuUi  codices  hahent  bonis  operibus;  sed  hoc  de  sensw  nihil 
mutat,  quia  subaudiendum  est  etiam  si  non  exprimatur.  "  Some 
books  have,  'by  good  works';  but  this  changeth  notliing  of  the 
sense,  for  that  must  be  miderstood  although  it  be  not  ex- 
pressed." The  same  tiling  in  effect  saith  Beza:  "that  our  elec- 
tion and  vocation  must  be  confirmed  by  the  effects  of  faith, 
that  is,  by  the  fruits  of  justice,  &c. ;  therefore  in  some  copies 
we  find  it  added,  'by  good  works.'  "  So  far  off  is  it,  that  Beza 
misliketh  those  words,  that  he  citeth  them  to  prove  the  per- 
petual connection  of  election,  vocation,  justification,  and  sancti- 
fication.  This  is  therefore  as  wicked  a  slander  of  us,  as  it  is 
an  untrue  afiirmation  of  the  vidgar  Latin,  that  it  is  the  text 
of  the  fathers  and  the  whole  church ;  whereby  you  shew 
yourself  to  be  a  Donatist,  to  acknowledge  no  church,  but 
where  the  Latin  text  is  occupied :  so  that  m  Greece,  Syria, 
Armenia,  Ethiopia,  and  other  parts  of  the  world,  where  the 
Latin  text  is  not  known  or  understood,  there  Christ  hath 
no  church  by  yom'  unadvised  assertion.  That  we  like  best 
the  most  common  Greek  text,  I  am  sure  that  we  do  it 
by  as  good  reason,  if  not  by  better,  than  you  in  so  great 
diversities  of  the  Latin  text,  who  like  best  of  that  which 
is  most  common  and  in  every  man's  hands. 

Martin.     Well,   say  we,   if  you  will   needs  have   it  so,  take  your  iAFaktiv, 
pleasure   in   choosing  your  text.     And  if  you  will  stand  to  it,  grant  '^^• 
us  that  Peter  was  chief  among  the  apostles,  because  your  own  Greek 

86  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PEEPACE. 

Matt.  X,  text  saith,  "  The  first,  Peter."  No,  saith  Beza,  we  will  grant  you  no 
such  thing ;  for  these  words  were  added  to  the  Greek  text  by  one  that 
favoured  Peter's  primacy.  Is  it  so?  then  you  wiU  not  stand  to  this 
Greek  text  neither?    Not  in  this  place,  saith  Beza. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.    In  granting  Peter  to  be  the  first,  we  need  not 

grant  him  to  be  the  chief ;  and  if  we  grant  him  to  be  the  chief, 
it  followeth  not  that  he  is  chief  in  authority.  But  if  that  were 
granted,  it  is  not  necessary  that  he  was  head  of  the  church. 
And  albeit  that  were  also  granted,  the  bishop  of  Rome  could 
gain  nothing  by  it.  But  what  saith  Beza,  where  the  text  saith, 
"  the  first  Peter"  ?  If  we  must  beUeve  you,  he  saith,  "No,  we 
will  grant  you  no  such  thing ;  for  these  words  were  added  to 
the  Greek  text  by  one  that  favoured  Peter's  primacy."  I  pray 
you,  Martin,  where  hath  Beza  those  words  ?  will  you  never 
leave  this  shameful  forgery  ?  Beza,  in  the  tenth  of  Matthew, 
doth  only  ask  the  question  :  Quid  si  hoc  rocabulum,  &c.  "  What 
if  this  word  were  added  by  some  that  would  estabhsh  the  pri- 
macy of  Peter  ?  for  nothing  followeth  that  may  agree  with  it." 
This  asketh  Beza,  but  as  an  objection,  which  immediately  after 
he  answereth,  and  concludeth  that  it  is  no  addition,  but  a 
natural  word  of  the  text  found  in  all  copies,  confessed  by 
Theophylact,  an  enemy  of  the  pope's  primacy,  and  defendeth 
it  in  the  third  of  Mark  (where  it  is  not  in  the  common  Greek 
copies,  nor  in  the  vulgar  Latin)  against  Erasmus,  who,  finding 
it  in  some  Greek  copies,  thought  it  was  mitruly  added  out 
of  Matthew.  But  Beza  saith,  £J(fo  vero  non  duhito  quin  hwc 
sit  germana  lectio:  "  But  I  doubt  not  but  this  is  the  true  and 
right  reading  of  the  text ;"  and  therefore  he  translateth  Pri- 
mum  Simonem,  "  the  first  Simon,"  out  of  the  few  copies  Eras- 
mus speaketh  of.  Therefore  it  is  an  abominable  slander  to 
charge  him  with  following  the  common  received  text,  where 
it  seemeth  to  make  against  you,  when  he  contendeth  for  the 
truth  against  the  common  text,  yea,  and  against  your  own 
vulgar  Latin,  to  give  you  that  which  you  make  so  great 
account  of,  that  Peter  in  the  catalogue  of  the  apostles  was 
first.  So  greatly  he  feareth  to  acknowledge  that  Peter  was 
called  first !  and  so  true  it  is  that  you  charge  him  to  say,  "No, 
we  will  grant  you  no  such  thing ;  for  these  words  were  added 
to  the  Greek  text  by. one  that  favoured  Peter's  primacy !"  I 
hope  your  favourers,  seeing  your  forgery  thus  manifestly  dis- 
covered, will  give  you  less  credit  in  other  yom*  shameless  slan- 
ders :  at  the  leastwise  this  in  equity  I  trust  all  papists  will 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  87 

grant,  not  to  believe  your  report  against  any  man's  writing, 
except  tliey  read  it  themselves.  Now  that  this  word  "  the  first" 
argueth  no  primacy  or  superiority,  beside  those  places  quoted 
by  Beza,  Acts  xxvi,  20,  Rom.  i.  8,  and  iii.  2,  you  may  read 
1  Par.  xxiii.  xxiv.  where  the  posterity  of  Levi  and  Aaron  are  [•  chron. 
rehearsed,  as  they  were  appointed  by  David  in  their  orders  xxiv."  7.]' 
or  courses  :  Subuel  primus,  Bohobia  jdrimus,  sors  prima  Joiarib, 
&c.  where  lest  you  should  think  of  any  headship  or  princi- 
pality, because  the  Hebrew  is  sometime  tt^J^"l,  and  the  Greek 
ap-^oyv,  you  may  see  that  Subuel  is  called  primus  of  the  sons 
of  Gerson,  when  there  is  no  more  mention;  and  more  expressly, 
Eohobia  is  called  primus  of  the  sons  of  Eleazer,  of  whom  it  is 
said,  that  he  had  no  more  sons ;  and  that  Wi^l  signifieth  here 
the  first  in  order,  it  appeareth  by  those  generations,  where  the 
second,  third,  or  fom^th,  is  named,  as  in  the  sons  of  Hebron 
and  of  Oziel.  Also  in  the  sons  of  Semei,  where  Jehoth  is 
counted  the  first,  Riza  the  second,  Jaus  and  Beria,  because 
they  increased  not  in  sons,  Avere  accounted  for  one  family.  In 
all  which  there  is  no  other  primacy  than  in  the  first  lot  of  pB,Knn 
Joiarib,  where  the  Hebrew  word  is  harishuon,  and  so  follow 
the  rest  in  order,  unto  four  and  twenty  com'ses.  Therefore 
there  is  no  cause  why  we  should  not  stand  to  the  Greek  text 
in  that  place,  neither  did  Beza  ever  deny  to  stand  to  it. 

Martin.     Let  us  see  another  place.     You  must  grant  us  (say  we)  Maktin, 

by  tliis  Greek  text,  that  Chiist's  very  blood  which  was  shed  for  us  is 

really  in  the  chalice,  because  St  Luke  saith  so  in  the  Greek  text.     No, 

saith  Beza ;  those  Greek  words  came  out  of  the  margin  into  the  text, 

and  therefore  I  translate  not  according  to  them,  but  according  to  that 

which  I  think  the  truer  Greek  text,  although  I  find  it  in  no  copies 

in  the  world:  and  this  his  doing  is  maintained  and  justified  by  our  See  chap.  i. 

English  Protestants  in  their  writings  of  late.  chap.  xvii. 

num.  11. 

FulJce.  Still  Beza  speaketh  as  you  inspire  into  him,  while  Fulke, 
he  speaketh  through  your  throat  or  quill.  The  truth  is,  Beza  ^^' 
saith,  that  either  there  is  a  manifest  solcecophanes,  that  is, 
an  appearance  of  incongruity  ;  or  else  those  words  "  which  is 
shed  for  you"  seem  to  be  added  out  of  St  Matthew ;  or 
else  it  is  an  error  of  the  writer's,  placing  that  in  the  nomi- 
native case  which  should  be  in  the  dative :  for  in  the 
dative  case  did  Basil  read  them  in  his  Morals',  21.  definition. 

P  Tovro    TO    TTOTijpiov    7]   KaivT)    8iadr]Krj    eo'riz'   eV   rS   al^ari  fiov,    ra 
vnep  vficov  iKxvvop.evM.      Hie  calix  novum  testamentum  est  in  sanguine 



Nevertheless,  all  our  old  books,  saith  Beza,  had  it  so 
written,  as  it  is  commonly  printed,  in  the  nominative  case. 
Here  are  three  several  distinctions,  yet  can  you  find  none 
but  one  proposition  that  you  set  down,  as  though  it  were 
purely  and  absolutely  afiirmed  by  Beza.  Likewise,  where  you 
speak  of  no  copies  in  the  world,  you  say  more  than  Beza, 
who  speaketh  but  of  such  copies  as  he  had;  who,  if  he  were 
of  no  better  conscience  than  you  would  have  him  seem  to 
be,  might  feign  some  copy  in  his  own  hands  to  salve  the 
matter.  But  the  truth  is,  that  since  he  wrote  this,  he  found 
one  more  ancient  copy,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  which  now 
is  at  Cambridge,  where  this  whole  verse  is  wanting.  But  of 
this  matter,  which  somewhat  concerneth  myself  particularly,  I 
shall  have  better  occasion  to  write  in  the  places  by  you  quoted, 
cap.  I.  37,  and  cap.  xvii.  11,  where  I  will  so  justify  that  wliich 
I  have  written  before  toucliing  this  place,  as  I  trust  all 
learned  and  indifferent  readers  shall  see  how  vainly  you  in- 
sult against  me,  where  you  bewray  grosser  ignorance  in  Greek 
phrases  than  ever  I  would  have  suspected  in  you,  bemg  ac- 
counted the  principal  linguist  of  the  seminary  at  Rhemes. 

]\Iartin,  Martin,    Well,  yet,  say  we,  there  are  places  in  the  same  Greek 

text,  as  plain  for  us  as  these  now  cited,  where  you  cannot  say,  it  came 

1  Thess.  ii.  out  of  the  margin,  or  it  was  added  falsely  to  the  text.  As,  "  Stand 
and  hold  fast  the  traditions,"  &c. :  by  this  text  we  require  that  you 
grant  us  traditions  delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  as  well  as  the  written 
word,  that  is,  the  scriptures.  No,  say  they,  we  know  the  Greek  word 
signifieth  tradition,  as  plain  as  possibly ;  but  here  and  in  the  like  places 
we  rather  translate  it  "  ordinances,"  "  instructions,"  and  what  else  soever. 
Nay,  sirs,  say  we,  you  cannot  so  answer  the  matter,  for  in  other  places 
you  translate  it  duly  and  truly  "  tradition ;"  and  why  more  in  one 
place  than  in  another?  They  are  ashamed  to  tell  why;  but  they  must 
tell,  and  shame  both  themselves  and  the  devil,  if  ever  they  think  it 
good  to  answer  this  treatise :  as  also,  why  they  changed  "  congregation," 
which  was  always  in  their  first  translation,  into  "  church"  in  their 
later  translations,  and  did  not  change  likewise  "  ordinances"  into  "  tra- 
ditions," "elders"  into  "priests." 



Fulke.  That  the  Thessalonians  had  some  part  of  chris- 
tian doctrine  delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  that  is,  by  the 
apostle's  preaching,  at  such  time  as  he  did  write  unto  them. 

meo,  qui  pro  vobis  funditur.    Basilii  Moralia.  Regula  xxi.  c.  3,  Opera, 
V.  iii.  p.  254.    Edit.  Gamier,  Parisiis,  1722.] 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  89 

and  some  part  by  his  epistles,  the  text  enforceth  us  to  grant, 
and  we  never  purposed  to  deny:  but  that  the  church  at  this 
day,  or  ever  since  the  New  Testament  was  written,  had  any 
tradition  by  word  of  mouth  of  any  matter  necessary  to  sal- 
vation, wliich  was  not  contained  in  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment, we  will  never  grant,  neither  shall  you  ever  be  able 
out  of  this  text  or  any  text  in  the  bible  to  prove.  Make 
your  syllogisms  when  you  dare,  and  you  shall  be  answered. 

But  "we  know,"  you  say,  "that  the  Greek  word  sig- 
nifieth  tradition  as  plain  as  possibly;  but  here,  and  in  hke 
places,  we  rather  translate  it  ordinances,  instructions,  and  what 
else  soever."  We  know  that  it  signifieth  tradition,  constitu- 
tion, instruction,  precept ;  also  mancipation,  treatise,  treason  : 
for  all  these  the  Greek  dictionaries  do  teach  that  it  signi- 
fieth. Therefore  if  in  anyplace  we  have  translated  it  "ordi- 
nances", or  "  instructions",  or  "  institutions",  we  have  not 
gone  from  the  true  signification  of  the  word;  neither  can  you 
ever  prove  that  the  word  signifieth  such  a  doctrine  only  as 
is  taught  by  word  of  mouth,  and  is  not  or  may  not  be  put 
in  writing.  But  in  other  places  you  can  tell  us,  that  we 
translate  it  duly  and  truly  "tracUtion";  and  you  will  know,  why 
more  in  one  place  than  in  another,  affirming  that  we  are 
shamed  to  tell  why.  For  my  part,  I  was  never  of  counsel 
with  any  that  translated  the  scriptures  into  Enghsh ;  and 
therefore  it  is  possible  I  cannot  sufficiently  express  what  rea- 
son moved  the  translators  so  to  vary  in  the  exposition  of 
one  and  the  same  word.  Yet  can  I  yield  sufficient  reason 
that  might  lead  them  so  to  do,  which  I  think  they  followed. 
The  papists  do  commonly  so  abuse  the  name  of  tradition, 
which  signifieth  properly  a  delivery,  or  a  thing  dehvered,  for 
such  a  matter  as  is  delivered  only  by  word  of  mouth,  and 
so  received  from  hand  to  hand,  that  it  is  never  put  in  writing, 
but  hath  his  credit  without  the  holy  scriptures  of  God,  as 
the  Jews  had  their  cabala,  and  the  scribes  and  Pharisees  had 
their  traditions,  beside  the  law  of  God ;  and  the  Valentinian  irenaeus, 
heretics  accused  the  scriptures,  as  insufficient  of  authority  2. '  ' 
and  ambiguously  written,  and  that  the  truth  could  not  be 
found  in  them  by  those  that  knew  not  the  tradition,  which 
was  not  delivered  by  writing,  but  by  word  of  mouth,  just 
as  the  papists  do.  This  abusing  of  the  word  "tradition"  might 
be  a  sufficient  cause  for  the  translators  to  render  the  Greek 

90  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

word,  where  it  is  taken  for  such  doctrine  as  is  beside  the 
commandment  of  God,  by  the  name  of  tradition,  as  the  word 
is  commonly  taken.  But  where  the  Greek  word  is  taken  in 
the  good  part,  for  that  doctrine  which  is  agreeable  with  the 
holy  scriptures,  they  might  with  good  reason  avoid  it,  as 
you  yourself  do  not  always  translate  tradere,  to  betray,  but 
sometimes  to  dehver.  So  did  the  translators  give  these  words, 
"ordinances",  "instructions",  "institutions",  or  doctrine  deli- 
vered ;  which  do  generally  signify  the  same  that  tradition,  but 
have  not  the  prejuchce  of  that  partial  signification  in  which  the 
papists  use  it,  who,  wheresoever  they  find  tradition,  straightway 
imagine  they  have  found  a  sufficient  argument  against  the  per- 
fection and  sufficiency  of  the  holy  scripture,  and  to  bring  in 
all  riff'-raff  and  trish-trash  of  man's  doctrine,  not  only  beside, 
but  also  contrary  to  the  manifest  word  of  God,  contained 
in  his  most  holy  and  perfect  scriptures.  To  the  shame  of 
the  devU  therefore,  and  of  all  popish  maintainors  of  traditions 
uncommanded  by  God,  this  reason  may  be  yielded. 

Now  to  answer  you,  why  ecclesia  was  first  translated  "con- 
gregation", and  afterward  "church"  ;  the  reason  that  moved 
the  first  translators,  I  tliink,  was  tliis  :  the  word  church  of  the 
common  people  at  that  time  was  used  ambiguously,  both  for 
the  assembly  of  the  faitliful,  and  for  the  place  in  which  they 
assembled ;  for  the  avoiding  of  which  ambiguity  they  trans- 
lated ecclesia  the  congregation ;  and  yet  in  their  creed,  and 
in  the  notes  of  theu^  bibles,  in  preacliing  and  writing,  they 
used  the  word  church  for  the  same :  the  later  translators, 
seeing  the  people  better  instructed  and  able  to  discern,  when 
they  read  in  the  scriptures,  the  people  from  the  place  of 
their  meeting,  used  the  Avord  church  in  their  translations,  as 
they  did  in  their  preaching.  These  are  weighty  matters 
that  we  must  give  account  of  them.  Why  we  change  not 
ordinances  into  traditions,  and  elders  into  priests,  we  will 
answer  when  Ave  come  to  the  proper  places  of  them.  In  the 
mean  season  we  thinlc,  there  is  as  good  cause  for  us  in  trans- 
lating, sometime  to  avoid  the  terms  of  traditions  and  priest, 
as  for  you  to  avoid  the  names  of  elders,  calling  them  ancients, 
and  the  wise  men  sages,  as  though  you  had  rather  speak 
French  than  English,,  as  we  do  :  \\ke  as  you  translate  confide, 
"  have  a  good  heart,"  after  the  French  phrase,  rather  than 
you  would  say  as  we  do,  "be  of  good  comfort." 

THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE.  91 

Martin.  The  cause  is,  that  the  name  of  church  was  at  the  first  Martin, 
odious  untd  them,  because  of  the  catholic  church  which  stood  against  °'^' 
them  ;  but  afterward  this  name  grew  into  more  favour  with  them,  be- 
cause of  their  English  church,  so  at  length  called  and  termed.  But 
their  hatred  of  priests  and  traditions  continueth  stiU,  as  it  first  began ; 
and  therefore  their  translation  also  remaineth  as  before,  suppressing  the 
names  both  of  the  one  and  of  the  other.  But  of  all  these  their  deal- 
ings they  shall  be  told  in  their  several  chapters  and  places. 

Fidke.  I  pray  you,  who  first  translated  the  creed  into  Fulke, 
the  English  tongue,  and  taught  it  to  the  people,  and  for  ^2. 
that  cause  were  accounted  heretics  of  the  antichristian  Ro- 
mish rabble '?  If  the  name  of  church  were  odious  unto  them, 
why  did  they  not  suppress  that  name  in  the  creed  which 
they  taught  to  young  and  old,  and  instead  of  cathoUc  church 
call  it  the  universal  congregation  or  assembly  ?  Well,  Davus, 
these  things  be  not  aptly  divided  according  to  then*  times. 
The  first  translation  of  the  bible,  that  was  printed  in  the 
English  tongue,  in  very  many  places  of  the  notes  useth  the 
name  church,  and  most  notoriously  in  the  Song  of  Salomon, 
where  before  every  other  verse  almost  it  telleth  which  is  the 
voice  of  the  church  to  Christ  her  spouse ;  which  no  reason- 
able man  would  tliink  the  translators  would  have  done,  if 
the  name  of  the  church  had  been  odious  unto  them,  or  that 
they  thought  the  cathoHc  church  stood  against  them.  Look 
Thomas  Matthews'  bible,  in  the  Canticles  of  Salomon,  and 
upon  the  xvi.  of  St  Matthew's  Gospel,  the  18th  verse,  the 
words  of  Christ  to  Peter.  Therefore  your  senseless  imagina- 
tions shew  no  hatred  of  the  cathoHc  church  in  our  translators, 
but  cankered  mahce  and  impudent  folly  in  yourselves. 

Martin.  To  conclude,  as  I  began,  concerning  their  sliifts  and  jumps,  Martin 
and  windings,  and  turnings  eveiy  way  from  one  thing  to  another,  till  ^3. 
they  are  driven  to  the  extreme  refuge  of  palpable  corruptions  and  false 
translations :  consider  with  me  in  this  one  case  only  of  traditions,  as  may 
be  likewise  considered  in  all  other  controversies,  that  the  ancient  fathers, 
councils,  antiquity,  universality,  and  custom  of  the  whole  church  allow 
traditions ;  the  canonical  scriptures  have  them,  the  Latin  text  hath 
them,  the  Greek  text  hath  them ;  only  their  translations  have  them  not. 
Likewise  in  the  Old  Testament,  the  approved  Latin  text  hath  such  and 
such  speeches,  that  make  for  us ;  the  I'enowned  Greek  text  hath  it,  the 
Hebrew  text  hath  it ;  only  their  translations  have  it  not. 

These  are  the  translations  which  we  call  heretical  and  wilful,  and 
which  shall  be  examined  and  discussed  in  this  book. 

92  THE    ANSWER    TO    THE    PREFACE. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     By  what  windings  and  turnings,  I  pray  you,  are 

we  driven  to  that  miserable  refuge  of  palpable  corruptions 
and  false  translations  ?  for  hitherto  you  have  shewed  none,  but 
such  as  shew  your  own  ignorance  or  malice.  Neither,  I  hope, 
you  shall  be  able  to  shew  any,  though  you  swear  never  so 
sore  at  your  work.  Yes,  I  ween,  this  one  case  only  of  tradi- 
tions, (for  so  you  seem  to  say,)  if  it  be  considered,  will  discover 
no  less.  It  is  marvel,  if  for  your  sake  all  the  Greek  diction- 
aries in  the  world  must  not  be  corrected,  and  taught  to  say, 
that  irapaSoaris  can  signify  notliing  but  a  tradition,  that  is,  not 
written.  But  yet  you  roll  in  your  accustomed  rhetoric,  say- 
ing, that  "the  ancient  fathers,  councils,  antiquity,  universahty, 
and  custom  of  the  whole  church  allow  traditions :"  and  so  do 
we,  so  many  as  be  good  and  agreeable  to  the  holy  scrip- 
tures ;  but  that  there  be  traditions  of  matter  necessary  to 
salvation  not  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures,  when  you  bring 
your  fathers,  councils,  &c.  you  shall  receive  an  answer  to 
them.  That  the  canonical  scripture  alloweth  any  traditions 
contrary  to  the  doctrine  thereof,  or  to  supply  any  want  or 
imperfection  thereof,  as  though  all  things  required  to  make 
the  man  of  God  perfect,  prepared  to  all  good  works,  were 
not  contained  in  the  scriptures,  you  shall  never  be  able  to 
prove,  although  for  spite  against  the  perfection  of  the  canoni- 
cal scripture  you  should  brast  asunder,  as  Judas  did,  which 
betrayed  the  author  of  the  scripture.  Finally,  whatsoevei* 
you  say  out  of  the  Old  Testament  without  proof  or  shew  of 
proof,  it  is  as  easily  denied  by  us  as  it  is  affirmed  by  you. 
When  you  bring  but  only  a  shadow  of  reason,  it  shall  soon 
be  chased  away   with  the  light    of  truth. 






That  the  Protestants  translate  the  holy  Scripture  falsely  of  pur- 
pose, in  favour  of  their  heresies,  throughout  all  controversies      95 


Against  apostolical  traditions  164 


Against  sacred  images 179 


The  ecclesiastical  use   of  words  turned  into  their  original  and 

profane  significations 217 


Against  the  Church 225 


Against  pi-iest  and  priesthood.    Where  much  also  is  said  of  their 

profaning  of  ecclesiastical  words    240 


Against  purgatory,  Limbus  Patrum,  and  Christ's  descending  into 

hell 278 


Concerning  justification,  and  God's  justice  in  rewarding  good  works    332 


Against  merits,  meritorious  works,  and  the  reward  for  the  same    343 


Against  free  will   375 


For  imputative  justice  against  true  inherent  justice    401 




For  special  faith,  vain  security,  and  only  faith' 415 


Against  penance  and  satisfaction    428 


Against  the  holy  sacraments,  namely  baptism,  and  confession  ...    450 


Against  the  sacrament  of  holy  orders,  and  for  the  marriage  of 

priests  and  votaries  460 


Against  the  sacrament  of  matrimony    492 


Against  the  blessed  sacrament,  and  sacrifice,  and  altars 497 


Against  the  honour  of  saints,  namely,  of  our  blessed  lady 526 


Against  the  distinction  of  Dulia  and  Latria  539 


Adding  to  the  text 547 

Other  heretical  treacheries  and  corruptions  worthy  of  observa- 
tion       557 


Other  faults  Judaical,  profane,  mere  vanities,  follies,  and  novelties    571 

A   DISCOVERY  ^'^-^^^ 










That  the    Protestants   translate   the  holy  Scriptures  falsely 
of  purpose,  in  favour  of  their  heresies. 

Martin.    Though  this  shall  evidently  appear  throughout  this  whole  Martin,  1. 
book  in  every  place  that  shall  be  objected  unto  them;  yet  because  it 
is  an  observation  of  greatest  importance  in  this  case,  and  which  stiugeth 
them  sore,  and  toucheth  their  credit  exceedingly,  insomuch  that  one 
of  them  setting  a  good  face  upon  the  matter  saith  confidently,  that  Confutation 
all  the  papists  in  the  world  are  not  able  to  shew  one  place  of  scrip-  fo.  35,  p.  2. ' 
ture  mistranslated  wilfully  of  purpose ;  therefore  I  will  give  the  reader 
certain  brief  observations  and  evident  marks  to  know  wilful  corruptions, 
as  it  were  an  abridgement  and  sum  of  this  treatise. 

Fulke.   Although  this  trifling  treatise  was  in  hand  two  or  Fulke,  I . 
three  years  ago,  as  by  the  threatening  of  Bristow  ^  and  Howlet 

{}  Richard  Bristow,  a  most  zealous  advocate  for  the  Roman  Catholic 
cause,  was  bom  at  Worcester  in  the  beginning  of  the  16th  Centuiy.  He 
left  the  University  of  Oxford  in  1569,  and  becoming  acquainted  with 
Dr  Allen,  was  made  public  lecturer  on  Divinity  at  Doway.  He  wrote, 
among  other  things,  A  brief  treatise  of  divers  plain  and  sure  ways  to 
find  out  the  truth  in  this  doubtful  and  dangerous  time  of  heresy,  contain- 
ing sundry  motives  unto  the  Catholic  faith ;  or,  considerations  to  move  a 
man  to  believe  the  Catholics,  and  not  the  heretics.  Antwerp,  1574.  These 
motives  were  answered  by  Fulke  in  his  Retentive  to  stay  good  Christ- 
ians in  true  faith  and  religion,  against  the  motives  of  Richard  Bristow. 
London,  1580. 

Bristow  also  wrote  A  Reply  to  William  Fulke,  in  Defence  of  Dr 
Allen's  Scroul  of  Articles,  and  Book  of  Purgatry.    Lovaine,  1580.      To 

96  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

it  may  appear ;  yet,  that  it  might  seem  new,  and  a  sudden 
piece  of  work  compiled  with  small  study,  you  thought  good 
by  carping  at  my  confutation  of  Howlet^  last  made,  and  of 
M.  Whitaker's^  work,  set  forth  later  than  it,  as  it  were  by 
setting  on  new  ears  upon  your  old  pot,  to  make  it  seem  to 
be  a  new  vessel.  And  first  of  all,  you  would  seem  to  have 
taken  occasion  of  my  confident  speech  in  my  confutation  of 
Howlet's  nine  reasons^,  in  rehearsing  whereof  you  use  such 
fidelity  as  commonly  papists  used  to  bear  towards  God,  the 
church,  your  prince,  and  your  country.  For  what  face  so- 
ever I  set  upon  the  matter,  with  a  whorish  forehead  and  a 
brasen  face  you  make  report  of  my  saying  ;  which,  being 
testified  by  a  thousand  copies  printed,  as  it  were  by  so  many 
witnesses,  doth  cry  out  upon  your  falsehood  and  injurious 
dealing.  For  my  words,  out  of  the  place  by  you  quoted 
Howiett*^  against  Howlet,  are  these  :  "That  some  error  may  be  in  trans- 
withl!."'  lation  (although  by  you  it  cannot  be  shewed)  I  will  not  deny  ; 
but  that  any  shameless  translations,  or  wilful  corruptions,  can 
be  found  of  purpose  to  draw  the  scriptures  to  any  heretical 

which  Fulke  rejoined  the  following  year,  in  his  book  entitled  A  re- 
joinder to  Bristow's  Replie  in  defence  of  Allen's  Scroll  of  Articles  and 
Boohe  of  Purgatorie,  S;c.  1581.  p.  792.  Wood's  Athens,  Vol.  i.  pp. 

^  The  Howlet  here  referred  to  was  Persons  the  Jesuit,  who  pub- 
lished under  tliis  name  a  treatise,  entitled  A  brief  Discourse,  containing 
the  reasons  why  Catholics  refuse  to  go  to  Church.  Doway,  1580.  It  was 
answered  the  same  year,  in  A  Check  to  Mr  Howlet's  Screechings  to  her 
Majesty,  (Wood's  Athenae,  Vol.  v.  pp.  68,  69.;)  and  in  a  Caveat  for 
Parson  Howlet,  1581,  (Hartshorne's  Book  Rarities  of  Cambridge,  p.  442;) 
and  also  by  Fulke,  in  Howlet's  Nine  Reasons;  and  seems  to  be  the  same 
book  as  the  one  just  mentioned.  Wood's  Athenae,  Vol.  ii.  p.  60,  and 
Possevinus  in  Apparat.  Sacr.  Vol.  ii.,  under  Robert  Persons.] 

[^  Wliitaker,  a  learned  divine,  and  Master  of  St  John's  College,  Cam- 
bridge: the  able  antagonist  of  Cardinal  BeUarmine,  Stapleton,  Cam- 
pian,  Saunders,  Rainolds,  &c.    He  died  in  1595.] 

P  "  A  briefe  confutation  of  a  Papist  Discourse :  lately  set  forth,  and 
presumptuously  dedicated  to  the  Queen's  most  excellent  Majestie:  by 
John  Howlet,  or  some  other  birde  of  the  night,  under  tliat  name, 
contayning  certame  Reasons,  why  Papistes  refuse  to  come  to  Church, 
which  reasons  are  here  inserted  and  set  downe  at  large,  with  their 
several  answers.  By  D., Fulke,  Maister  of  Pembroke  Hall,  in  Cam- 
bridge. Scene  and  allowed.  At  London,  printed  for  George  Byshop, 
1681.  qto.  b.  ].  58  leaves."] 


opinion,  all  the  papists  in  the  world  shall  never  be  able 
to  make  demonstration."  This  was  my  saying,  and  I  repeat 
it  again  with  as  great  confidence  as  before ;  yea,  and  with 
much  greater  too,  forasmuch  as  all  the  papists  in  the  semi- 
nary, having  now  beaten  their  heads  together  to  find  out 
"  shameless  translations  and  wilful  corruptions  of  purpose  to 
maintain  heresies,"  can  find  nothing  but  old  frivolous  quarrels 
answered  long  before,  or  new  trifling  cavils,  not  worthy  in- 
deed of  any  learned  man's  answer,  but  for  satisfying  of  the 
simple  and  ignorant.  How  this  my  saying  diifereth  from 
your  slanderous  report,  I  trust  every  reasonable  papist  that 
will  take  pains  to  confer  them  together,  will  be  enforced  to 
acknowledge.  For  where  I  say  "  shameless  translations  and 
wilful  corruptions,"  (as  Howlet  chargeth  us),  you  report  me  to , 
say  "mistranslated ;"  although  in  plain  words  I  did  confess  that 
there  might  be  some  errors  even  in  the  best  and  perfectest 
of  our  translations.  For  to  translate  out  of  one  tongue  into 
another  is  a  matter  of  greater  difficulty  than  it  is  commonly 
taken,  I  mean  exactly  to  yield  as  much  and  no  more  than 
the  original  containeth,  when  the  words  and  phrases  are  so 
different,  that  few  are  found  which  in  all  points  signify  the 
same  tiling,  neither  more  nor  less,  in  divers  tongues.  Where- 
fore, notwithstanding  any  translation  that  can  be  made,  the 
knowledge  of  the  tongues  is  necessary  in  the  church,  for  the 
perfect  discussing  of  the  sense  and  meaning  of  the  holy  scrip- 
tures. Now,  if  some  of  our  translators,  or  they  all,  have  not 
attained  to  the  best  and  most  proper  expressing  of  the  nature 
of  all  words  and  phrases  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  tongue^  in 
Enghsh,  it  is  not  the  matter  that  I  will  stand  to  defend,  nor 
the  translators  themselves,  I  am  well  assured,  if  they  were  all 
living :  but  that  the  scriptm-es  are  not  impudently  falsified 
or  wilfully  corrupted  by  them,  to  maintain  any  heretical 
opinion,  as  the  adversary  chargeth  us,  that  is  the  thing 
that  I  wUl  (by  God's  grace)  stand  to  defend  against  all  the 
papists  in  the  world.  And  this  end  you  have  falsely  and 
fraudulently  omitted  in  reporting  my  saying,  whereupon  de- 
pendeth  the  chief,  yea,  the  whole  matter  of  my  assertion. 
You  play  manifestly  with  us  the  lewd  part  of  Procrustes,  the 
thievish  host,  which  would  make  his  guests'  stature  equal 
with  his  bed's,  either  by  stretchmg  them  out  if  they  were  too 
short,  or  by  cutting  off  their  legs  if  they  were  too  long.      So 


98  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

if  our  sayings  be  too  short  for  your  purpose,  you  strain  them 
to  be  longer  ;  if  they  be  too  long,  you  cut  off  their  shanlvs ; 
yea,  that  which  is  worse,  the  very  head,  as  you  play  with  me 
in  this  place.  I  myself,  and  so  did  many  hundi'eds  beside  me, 
hear  that  reverend  father,  M.  Doctor  Coverdale,  of  holy  and 
learned  memory,  in  a  sermon  at  Paul's  cross,  upon  occasion  of 
some  slanderous  reports  that  then  were  raised  against  his 
translation,  declare  his  faithfid  purpose  in  doing  the  same ; 
which  after  it  was  finished,  and  presented  to  king  Henry  VIII. 
of  famous  memory,  and  by  him  committed  to  divers  bishops 
of  that  time  to  peruse,  of  wliich  (as  I  remember)  Stephen 
Gardiner  was  one ;  after  they  had  kept  it  long  in  their  hands, 
and  the  king  was  divers  times  sued  mito  for  the  publication 
thereof,  at  the  last  being  called  for  by  the  king  liimself,  they 
redelivered  the  book ;  and  being  demanded  by  the  king  what 
was  their  judgment  of  the  translation,  they  answered  that  there 
were  many  faults  therein.  "Well,"  said  the  king,  "but  are 
there  any  heresies  maintained  thereby  ?  "  They  answered,  there 
were  no  heresies,  that  they  could  find,  maintained  thereby. 
"K  there  be  no  heresies,"  said  the  king,  "then  in  God's  name 
let  it  go  abroad  among  our  people."  According  to  this  judg- 
ment of  the  king  and'  the  bishops,  M.  Coverdale  defended  his 
translation,  confessing  that  he  did  now  liimself  espy  some 
faults,  which,  if  he  might  review  it  once  over  again,  as  he  had 
done  twice  before,  he  doubted  not  but  to  amend ;  but  for  any 
heresy,  he  was  sure  there  was  none  maintained  by  his  trans- 
lation. After  the  same  manner,  I  doubt  not  (by  God's  help) 
so  to  defend  aU  our  translations,  for  all  your  evident  marks  to 
know  wilful  corruptions,  that  not  one  shall  be  fomid  of  pur- 
pose to  maintain  any  heretical  opinion,  and  not  many  errors 
committed  through  neghgence,  ignorance,  or  human  frailty. 

Martin,  2.       Martin.    The  first  mark  and  most  general  is  :  If  they  translate  else- 
Evident         where  not  amiss,  and  in  places  of  controversv  between  them  and  us  most 

marks  or  '  '-  *' 

signs  to  know  falsely;  it  is  an  evident  argument  that  they  do  it  not  of  negligence,  or 
ruptionsin  ignorance,  but  of  partiality  to  the  matter  in  controversy.  This  is  to  be 
seen  through  the  whole  bible,  where  the  faults  of  their  translations  are 
altogether,  or  specially,  m  those  scriptures  that  concern  the  causes  in 
question  between  us.  For  other  small  faults,  or  rather  oversights,  we 
will  no  further  note  unto  them,  than  to  the  end  that  they  may  the  more 
easily  pardon  us  the  like,  if  they  find  them. 

FuLKE,  2.         Fulke.     This  murk  is  too   general  to    know   anytliing 


thereby  :  when  you  do  exemplify  it  in  special,  you  shall 
easily  be  answered ;  in  the  meantime,  it  is  sufficient  to  deny 
generally,  that  wherewith  you  so  generally  charge  us,  that 
we  have  in  places  of  controversy  translated  anything  falsely. 
If  one  word  be  otherwise  translated  in  any  place  of  contro- 
versy, than  it  is  in  other  places  out  of  controversy,  there  may 
be  rendered  sufficient  reason  of  that  variety,  without  that  it 
must  needs  come  of  partiality  to  the  matter  in  controversy, 
but  rather  of  love  of  the  truth,  which  in  all  matters  of  ques- 
tion between  us  is  confirmed  by  plain  text  of  scriptm'es,  or 
necessary  collection  out  of  the  same  ;  so  that  if  the  translation 
in  those  places  were  the  same  that  yours  is,  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, it  should  neither  hinder  our  truth,  nor  fortify  your 
error.  As  for  small  faults  and  oversights,  reason  it  is  (as  you  . 
say)  they  should  be  pardoned  on  both  sides. 

Martin.  If,  as  in  their  opinions  and  heresies  they  forsake  the  an-  Martin,  3. 
cient  fathers,  so  also  in  their  translations  they  go  from  that  text  and 
ancient  reading  of  holy  scriptures,  Avhich  all  the  fathers  used  and  ex- 
pounded; is  it  not  plain  that  their  translation  foUoweth  the  vein  and 
humour  of  their  heresy  ?  And  again,  if  they  that  so  abhor  from  the  an- 
cient expositions  of  the  fathers,  yet,  if  it  seem  to  serve  for  them,  stick  not 
to  make  the  exposition  of  any  one  doctor  the  very  text  of  holy  scripture ; 
what  is  this  hut  heretical  wilfulness  1  See  this,  chap.  i.  numb.  43.  chap.  x. 
numb.  1,  2.  chap,  xviii.  numb.  10,  11.  and  chap.  xix.  numb.  1. 

Fidke.  We  never  go  from  that  text  and  ancient  reading,  Fulke,  3. 
which  all  the  fathers  used  and  expounded ;  but  we  translate 
that  most  usual  text,  which  was  first  printed  out  of  the  most 
ancient  copies  that  could  be  found ;  and  if  any  be  since  found, 
or  if  any  of  the  ancient  fathers  did  read  otherwise  than  the 
usual  copies,  in  any  word  that  is  any  way  material,  in  anno- 
tation, commentaries,  readings,  and  sermons,  we  sjDare  not  to 
declare  it  as  occasion  serveth  :  but  that  we  "  stick  not  to  make 
the  exposition  of  any  one  doctor  the  very  text  of  holy  scripture," 
it  is  a  very  heinous  slander,  neither  can  it  be  proved  in  any  of 
the  places  of  your  book,  wliich  you  quote  for  that  purpose. 

Martin.     Again,  if  they  that  profess  to  translate  the  Hebrew  and  Martin,  4. 
Greek,  and  that  because  it  maketh  more  for  them  (as   they  say),  and 
therefore  in  all  conferences  and  disputations  appeal  unto  it  as  to  the 
fountain  and  touchstone,  if  they  (I  say)  in  translating   places  of  con- 
troversy flee  from  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek ;  it  is  a  most  certain  argu- 


100  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

ment  of  wilful  corruption.  This  is  done  many  ways,  and  is  to  be  observed 
also  throughout  the  whole  bible,  and  in  all  this  book. 

FuLKE,  4.  FulJce.  We  never  flee  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  in 
any  place,  much  less  in  places  of  controversy  ;  but  we  always 
hold,  as  near  as  we  can,  that  which  the  Greek  and  Hebrew 
signifieth.  But  if  in  places  of  controversy  we  take  witness 
of  the  Greek  or  vulgar  Latin,  where  the  Hebrew  or  Greek 
may  be  thought  ambiguous;  I  trust  no  wise  man  will  count 
this  a  flight  from  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  which  we  always 
translate  aright,  whether  it  agree  with  the  Seventy  or  vulgar 
Latin,  or  no. 

Martin,  5.  Martin.  If  the  Greek  be  idololatria  and  idololatra,  and  they  trans- 
elSw\o\a-  late  not  idolatry  and  idolater,  but,  worshipping  of  images,  and  wor- 
'^Is'^XX  '  s^ipP^^  of  images;  and  that  so  absurdly,  that  they  make  the  apostle  say, 
-rpjjs.  '  covetousness  is  worshipping  of  images ;'  this  none  would  do  but  fools  or 

^Pj'-.y-  madmen,  unless  it  were  of  purpose  against  sacred  images.  See  chap.  iii. 
Bib.  an.  1577.  numb.  1,  2. 

FuLKE,  5.  Fulke.  If  the  Greek  words  do  signify  as  we  translate, 
(as  hath  been  often  proved,)  who  but  a  wrangling  quarreller 
would  find  fault  therewith,  except  it  were  to  maintain  idolatry, 
or  worshipping  of  images,  which  before  God  and  all  wise  men 
of  the  world  is  all  one?  And  where  you  say,  none  but  fools 
or  madmen  would  translate,  Ep,  v.  ^  Col.  iii.,  "  covetousness  is 
worshipping  of  images  ;"  I  pray  you,  in  whether  order  will  you 
place  Isidorus  Clarius,  of  a  monk  of  Casinas  made  bishop  Ful- 
ginas,  which  in  the  tliird  to  the  Colossians  upon  your  vulgar 
Latin  text,  (which  according  to  the  Greek  calleth  idololatria, 
simulacrorum  servitus,  the  service  of  images,)  in  his  notes 
upon  the  place  writeth  this :  Prceter  cetera  peccata  avaritia 
peculiare  hoc  nomen  assecuta  est,  ut  dicatur  esse  {horrendum 
nomen)  cidtus  simulacrorum.  Nam  pecunia  quid  aliud  est 
quam  simulacrum  quoddam,  vel  argenteum  vel  aureum,, 
quod  homines  avari  plus  amant,  et  longe  majore  cultu  atque 
honore prosequuntur,  quam  ipsum  Deum.^  "Above  other  sins, 

P  The  translations  of  Tyndale  1534,  Cranmer  1539,  and  Bishops' 
Bible  1584,  render  Ephes.  v.  5.  os  ea-nv  elBcoXoXarpr^s,  "which  is  a 
worshipper  of  images."  The  Geneva  versions  1657,  1560,  have  it 
the  same  as  the  Authorised  version  of  1611,  "which  is  an  idolater." 
The  Vulgate  has,  "quod  est  idolorum  servitus."] 

[2  Critici.  Sacri.  vii.  284.3 

1.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  101 

covetousness  hath  obtained  this  peculiar  name,  that  it  is  called 
(which  is  an  horrible  name)  the  worshipping  of  images ;  for 
what  other  thing  is  money  but  a  certain  image,  either  of  silver 
or  gold,  which  covetous  men  do  love  more,  and  prosecute 
with  far  greater  worship  and  honour,  than  they  do  God  him- 
self?" Or,  if  you  make  no  count  of  Isidorus  Clarius,  in  what 
degree  will  you  account  the  deputies  of  the  council  of  Trent  ^, 
whose  severe  censure  this  note  hath  escaped?  of  fools,  or  of 
madmen,  or  of  enemies  to  sacred  images  ?  Yea,  how  will 
you  excuse  your  own  vulgar  Latin  translation,  which  turneth 
idololatria  out  of  Greek  into  simulacroruni  servitus,  "  the 
service  or  worship  of  images "  ?  I  am[not  so  unaquainted  with 
your  shameless  shifts,  but  I  know  right  well  that  you  will 
say,  this  Latin  word  simulacrum  signifieth  a  false  image,  * 
or  an  idol  that  is  worshipped  as  God ;  for  nothing  else  you 
will  acknowledge  to  be  an  idol.  But  who  shall  better  tell  us 
what  the  Latin  word  simulacrum,  doth  signify,  than  the 
father  of  eloquence  in  the  Latin  tongue,  even  Tully  liimself, 
who  in  liis  oration  pro  Archia  poeta  useth  simulacrum  for 
the  same  that  statua  and  imago?  Speaking  of  the  cunning 
image-makers  of  Greece,  he  saith,  Statuce  et  imagines  non 
unimorum  simulacra  sunt,  sed  corporum :  "  standing  images 
and  other  images  are  not  similitudes  or  images  of  the  minds, 
but  of  the  bodies."  And  in  his  accusation  of  Verreshe  nameth 
effigies  simulacrumque  Mithridatis,  "  the  shape  and  image  of 
Mithridates."  In  his  second  book  De  Inventione  he  sheweth 
that  Zeuxis,  that  famous  painter,  did  paint  the  image  of  He- 
lena :  ut  excellentem  m,uliebrisjhrmce  pidchritudinem  muta  in 
sese  imago  contineret,  Helenoe  se  pingere  velle  simulacrum 
dixit.  "  That  a  dumb  image  might  contain  in  it  the  excellent 
beauty  of  a  woman's  form,  he  said  he  would  paint  the  simih- 
tude  or  image  of  Helena."  Also  in  his  famihar  epistles, 
Epist.  Ixviii.,  Illi  artifices  corporis  simulacra  ignotis  nota 
faciehant :  "  those  workmen  did  make  the  images  of  the 
bodies  known  to  them  that  knew  them  not."  And  so  com- 
monly he  useth  simulacrum,  justitice,  virtutis,  civitatis, 
for  the  image  or  similitude  of  justice,  of  virtue,  of  a  city  or 
I  commonwealth,  &c.  And  so  do  other  good  Latin  writers,  as 
weU  as  he,  use  the  word  simulacrum,  not  only  for  an  image 

P  The  deputies  who  took  off  the  interdiction  pronounced  on  tho 
edition  of  1642.] 




De  vero  Dei 
cultu.  lib.  e. 
cap.  43. 

De  orig. 
error,  lib.  2. 
cap.  2. 

that  is  religiously  worshipped,  but  even  generally  for  any 
image,  and  in  the  same  signification  that  they  use  the  word 
imago.  But  peradventure  ecclesiastical  writers  use  the  word 
simulacrum  only  for  idols  forbidden ;  and  I  perhaps  shall  be 
chidden  of  Martin  for  citing  testimonies  out  of  profane  authors, 
to  know  the  use  of  ecclesiastical  terms.  Let  us  see  then  what 
christian  writers  say  to  this  matter,  and  how  they  use  this 
word  simulacrum.  You  yourselves  say  we  may  not  trans- 
late that  verse  of  Genesis,  "  God  made  man  after  his  idol." 
But  Lactantius^  calleth  men  viventia  Dei  simulacra,  "living 
images  of  God,"  which  we  ought  to  garnish  rather  than  simur- 
lacra  insensibiliaDeorum,  "  the  senseless  images  of  the  Gods," 
wliich  the  heathen  garnished  :  yea,  he  hath  a  whole  chapter, 
intituled,  De  simulacris  et  vero  Dei  simulacra  et  cultu, 
"  Of  images  and  of  the  true  image  and  worship  of  God";  in 
wliich  also  he  sheweth  that  simulacrum  is  called  of  simili- 
tude :  and  therefore  the  heathenish  idols,  havmg  no  resem- 
blance of  God,  cannot  properly  be  called  simulacra.  St 
Ambrose^,  another  writer  of  the  church,  upon  1  Cor.  x.,  upon 
that  text,  Non  quia  simulacrum  est  aliquid,  &c.,  "  not  that 
the  image  is  anything"  :  (the  Greek  is  idolimi :)  Simulacruin 
vere  nihil  est,  quia  imago  videtur  rei  mortuce :  "  The  image 
or  idol  is  indeed  nothing,  because  it  seemeth  to  be  an  image 
of  a  dead  thing."  Also  upon  the  45th  psalm :  "  God  was 
high  in  the  patriarchs  and  prophets,  which  did  not  compare 
him  imaginihus  terrenis  et  simidacris  scrtipeis^,  to  images 
or  similitudes  of  the  earth  and  stone."  Tertulhan^  also,  a 
Latin  writer,  in  his  book  De  Spectacidis,  speaking  of  cimning 
workmanship  of  imagery,  shewed  in  those  plays,  and  the 
authors  of  them,  saith :  Scimus  enim  nihil  esse  twmina  mor- 
tuorum,  sicut  nee  ipsa  simulacra  eorum :  "  we  know  that  the 
names  of  those  dead  men  are  nothing,  as  also  their  images." 

1^^  Nam  si  deorum  cultores  simulacra  insensibilia  excolunt,  et  quidquid 
pretiosi  habent,  in  ea  conferunt,  quibus  nee  uti  possunt,  nee  gratias  agere, 
quod  acceperint;  quanto  justius  est  et  verius,  viventia  Dei  simulacra 
excolere,  ut  promereare  viventem?  Lactantii  De  vero  Cultu,  Lib.  vi. 
cap.  13.    Opera,  Vol.  i.  p.  472.  edit.  Dufresnoy,  Lutet.  Paris.  1748.] 

P  Simulacrum  vere  niliil  est,  quia  imago  videtur  rei  mortuse:  sed 
sub  tegmine  simulacrorlim  diabolus  colitur.  Ambros.  Op.  Vol.  ii.  p.  145.] 

P  In  Psal.  xLv.  Enarratio,  prop,  fin.] 

P  Tertullianus  de  Spectaculis,  p.  15.  edit.  Rigalt.  1634.] 

1.]  TKANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  103 

Afterward  to  their  names,  nominihus,  he  joineth  imaginihus, 
to  shew  that  simulacra  and  imagines  are  all  one,  which  of 
Christians  at  that  time  were  greatly  abhorred  in  detestation 
of  idolatry.  St  Augustme^  calleth  the  same  simulacra,  which 
before  he  called  imagines :  Cum  ex  desiderio  mortuonmi 
constituerentur  imagines,  unde  simidacrorum  usus  exortus 
est :  "  when  for  desire  of  the  dead  images  were  made,  whereof 
the  use  of  images  came,  through  flattery,  divine  honour  was 
given  unto  them."  And  so  they  brought  in  idolatry,  or  the 
worsliipping  of  images.  The  same  Augustine'^,  in  his  book 
Octoginta  Qumstion.,  in  the  seventy-eighth  question,  which  is 
intituled  De  simidacrorum  j)ulchrittidine,  "  of  the  beauty  of 
images,"  ascribeth  to  God  the  cunning  by  which  they  are 
made  beautiful.  And  in  his  questions  upon  the  book  of  • 
Judges,  hb.  vii.  cap.  41,  inquiring  how  Gideon's  ephod  was 
a  cause  of  fornication  to  the  people,  when  it  was  no  idoF,  he 

[f  Non  igitur  mirum  est,  si  prsevaricatores  angeli,  quorum  duo 
maxima  vitia  sunt  superbia  atque  fallacia,  pei'  liunc  aerem  volitantes, 
quod  uni  vero  Deo  deberi  noverant,  hoc  sibi  a  suis  cultoribus  exe- 
gerunt,  a  quibus  dii  putari  voluerunt,  dante  sibi  locum  vanitate  cordis 
humani:  maxrme  cum  ex  desiderio  mortuorum  constituerentur  ima- 
gines, unde  simulacrorum  usus  exortus  est.  Augustini  Conti-a  Faustum. 
Lib.  XXII.  cap.  17.    Opera,  Vol.  viii.  p.  577.  edit.  Paris.  1837.] 

\y  Ars  ilia  summa  omnipotentis  Dei,  per  quam  ex  nihilo  facta  sunt 
omnia,  quae  etiam  sapientia  ejus  dicitur,  ipsa  operatur  etiam  per  arti- 
fices, ut  pulchra  atque  congruentia  faciant ;  quamvis  non  de  nihilo,  sed 
de  aliqua  materia  operentur,  velut  ligno,  aut  marmore,  aut  ebore,  et 
si  quod  aliud  materise  genus  manibus  artificis  subditur.  Sed  ideo  isti 
non  possunt  de  nihilo  aliquid  fabricare,  quia  per  corpus  operantur,  cum 
tamen  cos  numeros  et  lineamentorum  convenientiam,  quae  per  corpus 
corpori  imprimunt,  in  animo  accipiant  ab  ilia  summa  sapientia,  quae  ip- 
sos  numeros  et  ipsam  convenientiam  longe  artificiosius  universo  mundi 
corpori  imprcssit,  quod  de  nihilo  fabricatum  est;  in  quo  sunt  etiam 
corpora  animalium,  quae  jam  de  aliquo,  id  est,  de  elementis  mundi 
fabricantur,  sed  longe  potentius  excellentiusque,  quam  cum  artifices 
homines  easdem  figuras  corporum  et  formas  in  suis  operibus  imitantur. 
Augustini  Liber  de  diversis  Quaestionibus,  lxxviii.  Vol.  vi.  p.  125.] 

[J  Hoc  ergo  illicitum  cum  fecisset  Gedeon,  fornicatus  est  post  illud 
orrmis  Israel,  id  est,  sequendo  illud  contra  legem  Dei:  ubi  non  frustra 
quaeritur,  cum  idolum  non  fuerit,  id  est,  cujusquam  Dei  falsi  et  alieni 
simulacrum,  sed  ephud,  id  est,  unum  de  sacramentis  tabernaculi  quod 
ad  vestem  sacerdotalem  pertineret,  quomodo  fornicationem  scriptura 
dicat  populi  ista  sectantis  atque  venerantis.  Augustini  Quaestiones  in 
Judices,  xLi.  Vol.  in.  p.  939.] 

104  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

plainly  distinguisheth  simulacrum  from  idolum,  as  the  ge- 
neral from  the  special,  Cum  idolum  non  fuerit,  id  est  cujus- 
piam  dei  falsi  et  alieni  simulacrum  :  "  when  it  was  no  idol, 
that  is  to  say,  an  image  of  some  false  or  strange  God."  Again 
he  saith :  "  Those  things  that  were  commanded  to  be  made  in 
the  tabernacle,  were  rather  referred  to  the  worship  of  God, 
than  that  anything  of  them  should  be  taken  for  God,  or  for 
an  image  of  God,  pro  Dei  simulacro.  So  that  simulacrum 
with  St  Augustine  signifieth  as  generally  as  image,  and  can- 
not be  restrained  to  signify  an  idol  in  the  evil  part,  except 
you  add,  that  it  is  an  image  of  a  false  or  strange  god.  Ar- 
nobius,  an  ecclesiastical  writer  of  the  Latin  church,  useth  the 
word  simidacrum  for  an  image  generally ;  calling  man  also 
simulacrum  Dei,  (as  Lactantius'  doth  the  image  of  God,) 
Cont.  gent.  lib.  vi.  Putatis  autem  nos  occultare  quod  colimus, 
si  delubra  et  aras  non  habemus  ?  Quod  enim  simidacrum 
Deo  fingam,  cum  si  recte  existimes  sit  Dei  homo  ipse  sim,u- 
lacrum  ?  "  Think  you  that  we  do  hide  that  which  we  worship, 
if  we  have  no  temples  and  altars?  For  what  image  shall 
I  feign  to  God?  whereas,  if  you  judge  rightly,  man  himself  is 
the  image  of  God."  You  see  therefore  that  simulacrum  sig- 
nifieth not  an  idol  worshipped  for  God,  but  even  as  much  as 
imago,  by  your  own  rule.  Last  of  all,  (for  I  will  not  trouble 
the  reader  with  more,  although  more  might  be  brought,)  Isi- 
dorus  Hispalensis,  an  ancient  bishop  of  the  Latin  church, 
Originum,  lib.  viii.,  speaking  of  the  first  inventors  of  images, 
which  after  were  abused  to  idolatry,  saith :  Fuerunt  etiam 
et  quidam  viri  fortes  aut  urbium  conditores,  quibus  mortuis 
homines  qui  eos  dilexerunt  simulacra  finxerunt,  ut  haberent 
aliquod  ex  imaginum  contemplatione  solatium;  sed  paulatim 
hunc  errorem,  &c.  "  There  were  also  certain  vahant  men,  or 
builders  of  cities,  who  when  they  were  dead,  men  which  loved 
them  made  their  images  or  counterfeits,  that  they  might  have 
some  comfort  in  beholding  the  images ;  but  by  Uttle  and  Httle, 
the  devils  persuading  this  error,  it  is  certain  that  so  it  crept 
into  their  posterity,  that  those  whom  they  honoured  for  the 
only  remembrance  of  their  name,   their  successors  esteemed 

\}  Itaqiie  simulacrum  Dei  non  Ulud  est,  quod  digitis  hominis  ex 
lapide,  aut  sere,  aliave  materia  fabricatur;  sed  ipse  homo,  quoniam  et 
sentit,  et  movetur,  et  multas  magnasque  actiones  habet.  Firm.  Lac- 
tantii  Divin.  Institut.  Lib.  ii.  cap.  2.] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  105 

and  worsliipped  as  gods."  Again  he  saith,  Simulacra 
autem  a  similitudine  nunciipata,  &c.  "  Images  are  called 
simulacra  of  the  similitude,  because  by  the  hand  of  the 
artificers  of  stone  or  other  matter  they  resemble  the  counte- 
nance of  them  in  whose  honour  they  are  feigned ;  or  they  are 
called  a  simulando,  whereof  it  followeth  they  are  false  things^." 
These  testimonies  needed  not  for  them  that  be  but  half- 
learned,  which  know  right  well  that  simulacrum  is  synono- 
mon  with  imago ;  but  that  our  adversaries  are  so  impudent, 
that  to  serve  their  idolatrous  affection  they  care  not  what 
idols  they  invent,  of  words,  of  significations,  of  distinctions,  so 
they  may  seem  to  say  somewhat  in  the  ears  of  the  unlearned, 
which  are  not  able  to  judge  of  such  matters.  But  perhaps 
they  wiU  say,  their  vulgar  Latin  interpreter  useth  the  word' 
simulacrum  only  for  idols  that  are  worsliipped  with  divine 
honour.  Neither  is  that  true ;  and  although  it  were,  seemg 
it  seldom  useth  simulacra,  and  most  commonly  idola,  and 
sometimes  imagines,  what  reason  is  there  why  we  may  not 
call  those  things  images,  which  your  interpreter  calleth  simu- 
lacra ?  And  to  prove  that  your  interpreter  useth  simula- 
crum for  an  image  generally,  as  all  other  Latin  writers  do, 
you  may  see  1  Sam.  cap.  xix.^,  where  speaking  of  the  image 
which  Michol  laid  in  the  bed,  to  counterfeit  the  sickness  of 
David,  first  he  calleth  it  statuam,  and  afterward  the  same 
image  he  calleth  simulacrum.  And  sure  it  is,  that  David 
had  no  idols  in  his  house.  And  lest  you  should  cavil  about 
the  Hebrew  word  teraphim*,  which  the  Septuaginta  translate 
Kevordcpia,  Aquila  calleth  fxop(p(OfjLaTa,   St  Jerome  telleth  you  Quast.  Met. 

[f  Sed  paulatim  hunc  errorem,  persuadentibus  dsemonibus  ita  ut 
posteris  constet  irrepsisse,  ut  quos  illi  pro  sola  nominis  memoria  ho- 
noraverunt,  successores  deos  existimarent  atque  colerent.  Simulacra 
autem  a  similitudine  nuncupata,  eo  quod  manu  artificis  ex  lapide 
aliave  materia  eorum  vultus  imitantur,  in  quorum  honorem  finguntur. 
Ergo  simulacra,  vel  pro  eo  quod  sunt  similia,  vel  pro  eo  quod  si- 
mulata  atque  conficta,  unde  et  falsa  sunt.  Etymologiarum,  Lib.  viii. 
cap.  5,  fi,  Vol.  III.  p.  876.  edit.  Arevalo.] 

[^  The  LXX.  have  1  Sara.  13.  kcu  fka^ep  »;  MeX^oX  ra  Kevordcfiia: 
the  Vulgate  has,  "Tulit  autem  Michol  statuam."  At  the  16th  verse 
the  LXX.  have,  xai  l8ov  to.  nevord^ia:  the  Vulgate,  "inventum  est 

\_*  Et  furata  est  Rachel  idola  patris  sui:  (Gen.  xxxi.  19.)  ubi  nunc 
idola  legimus,   in    Hebrseo    Theraphim   (D^21il)    scriptum    est,    quae 

106  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

they  signify  figuras  or  imagines,  "  figures  or  images,"  which 
sometimes  were  abused  to  idolatry,  as  those  which  Rachel  stole, 
and  those  which  are  mentioned  Jud.  xvii.  Aben  Ezra,  and 
other  of  the  rabbins,  say  they  were  astronomical  images,  to 
serve  for  dials,  or  other  purposes  of  astrology  ;  and  such,  it 
is  most  like,  was  that  which  was  placed  in  David's  bed,  wliich 
your  interpreter  calleth  statuam  and  simulacrum.  Therefore, 
whereas  we  have  translated  idololatria,  Col.  iii.\  "  worsliip- 
ping  of  images,"  we  have  done  rightly ;  and  your  Latm  inter- 
preter will  warrant  that  translation,  which  translateth  the 
same  word,  simulacrorum  servitus,  the  service  of  images. 
It  is  you  therefore,  and  not  we,  that  are  to  be  blamed  for 
translation  of  that  word;  for  where  you  charge  us  to  depart 
from  the  Greek  text,  which  we  profess  to  translate,  we  do 
not,  except  your  vulgar  translation  be  false.  But  you,  pro- 
fessing to  follow  the  Latin,  as  the  only  true  and  authentical 
text,  do  manifestly  depart  from  it  in  your  translation ;  for  the 
Latin  being  simulacrorum  servitus,  you  call  it  the  service  of 
idols,  appealing  to  the  Greek  word,  wliich  you  have  set  in 
the  margin,  eidcoXoXarpeia,  and  dare  not  translate  according  to 
your  own  Latm ;  for  then  you  should  have  called  covetousness 
even  as  we  do,  the  worshippmg  or  service  of  images.  And 
yet  you  charge  us  in  your  notes  with  a  marvellous  impudent 
and  foolish  corruption.  But  I  report  me  to  all  mdifferent 
readers,  whether  this  be  not  a  marvellous  impudent  and  fool- 
ish reprehension,  to  reprove  us  for  saying  the  same  in  Enghsh, 
that  your  own  interpreter  saith  in  Latin  ;  for  simulacro- 
rum servitus  is  as  well  the  service  of  images,  as  simulacro- 
rum artifex  is  a  maker  of  images,  whom  none  but  a  fool  or 
a  madman  would  call  a  maker  of  idols ;  because,  not  the 
craftsman  that  frameth  the  image,  but  he  that  setteth  it  up  to 
be  worshipped  as  God,  maketh  an  idol,  accordmg  to  your  own 

Aquila  iiopcfxifiara,  id  est,  figuras,  vel  imagines  interpretatur.  Hoc  au- 
tem  ideo,  ut  sciamus  quid  Judicum  libro  Tiieraphim  sonet.  (Jud. 
xvii.  6.)  Hieronymi  Qunestionum  Hebraic,  in  Genesim.  Opera,  Vol.  ii. 
p.  535.  edit.  Martianay.] 

P  Koi  rrjv  TrXeove^iav,  tjtls  icTTiv  etStoXoXarpeta.  Coloss.  iii.  5.  "  Et 
avaritiam,  qusB  est  simulacrorum  servitus."  Vulg.  "  And  covetousness, 
which  is  worshipping  of  idols."  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "And  covetousness, 
wliich  is  idolatry."  Geneva,  Authorised.  "And  covetousness,  which 
is  worshipping  of  images."  Bishops'  Bible.  "And  avarice,  which  is 
the  service  of  idols."    Rheims.] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  107 

acceptation  of  an  idol.      But  of  this  matter  enough  at  this 

Martin.     If  the  apostle  say,  a  Pagan  idolater,  and  a  Christian  idol-  Martin,  6. 
ater,  by  one  and  the  same  Greek  word,  in  one  and  the  same  meaning ;  ^^-^^oXd- 
and  they  translate,  a  Pagan  idolater,  and   a  Christian  worsliipper  of  xpjjs. 
images,  by  two  distinct  words  and  diverse  meanings ;  it  must  needs  be 
done  wUfully  to  the  foresaid  purpose.     See  chap.  iii.  numb.  8,  9. 

Fulke.  We  translate  not  only  pagan  idolaters,  but  also  Fulke,  6. 
Jewish  idolaters,  nor  Christians  only  worshippers  of  images, 
but  pagans  also  :  wherefore  this  is  a  foolish  observation. 
And  if  we  do  any  where  explicate,  who  is  an  idolater,  by  ' 
translating  him  a  worsliipper  of  images,  both  the  word  bear- 
eth  it,  and  it  is  not  contrary  to  the  sense  of  the  scriptures, 
in  which  we  find  the  worshipping  of  images  always  forbidden, 
but  never  commanded  or  allowed. 

Martin.    If  they  translate  one  and  the  same  Greek  word  tradition,  Martin,  7. 
whensoever  the  scripture  speaketh  of  evil  traditions  ;  and  never  translate  Trapdooai^. 
it  so,  whensoever  it  speaketh  of  good  and  apostolical  traditions ;  their 
intention  is  evident  against  the  authority  of  traditions.     See  chap.  ii. 
numb.  1,  2,  3. 

Fulke.  This  is  answered  sufficiently  in  confutation  of  Fulke,  7. 
the  preface,  sect.  51.  The  English  word  "  tradition"  sounding 
m  the  evil  part,  and  taken  by  the  papists  for  matter  un- 
written, yet  as  true  and  as  necessary  as  that  which  is  con- 
tained in  the  holy  scriptures,  we  have  upon  just  cause 
avoided  in  such  places,  as  the  Greek  word  signifieth  good 
and  necessary  doctrine,  dehvered  by  the  apostles,  which  is 
all  contained  in  the  scriptures  ;  and  yet  have  used  such  English 
words  as  sufficiently  express  the  Greek  word  used  in  the 
original  text.  Do  not  you  yom*selves  translate  tradere  some- 
times to   betray,  and  sometimes  to  deliver  ? 

Martin.  Yea,  if  they  translate  "tradition,"  taken  in  ill  part,  where  it  Martin,  \s. 
is  not  in  the  Greek ;  and  translate  it  not  so,  where  it  is  in  the  Greek,  tI  Soy/na- 
taken  in  good  part ;  it  is  more  evidence  of  the  foresaid  wicked  intention.  coPiT  20" 
See  chap.  ii.  numb.  5,  6. 

Q2  Tt  &)s  Cavres  eV  koV/lim  BoyixariCecrde ;  Col.  ii.  20.  "Quidadhuc 
tamquam  viventes  in  mundo  decernitis?"  Vulg.  "Are  ye  led  with  tra- 
ditions of  them  that  sayl"    Tyndale.    "Are  ye  led  with  traditions?" 

108  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

FuLKE,  8.  Fulke.  Our  intention  can  be  no  worse  than  your  vulgar 
Latin  interpreter's  was,  who,  where  the  Greek  hath  eOrj, 
translateth  it  traditions,  Act.  vi.  And  the  right  understanding 
of  the  word  ^oytxaTiiCeaQe,  according  to  the  Apostle's  mean- 
ing, will  yield  traditions,  as  well  as  'kBri  in  the  place  before 

Martin,  9.  Martin.  If  they  make  this  a  good  rule,  to  translate  according  to  the 
usual  signification,  and  not  the  original  derivation  of  words,  as  Beza  and 

Pag.  209.  Master  Whitakers  do  ;  and  if  they  translate  contrary  to  this  inle,  what 
is  it  but  wilful  corruption  ?  So  they  do  in  translating  idolum  an  image, 
presbyter  an  elder  ;  and  the  like.  See  chap.  iv.  and  chap.  vi.  numb. 
6,  7,  8,  &c.,  numb.  13,  &c. 

Fulke  9.  Fulke.  Neither  Beza,  nor  Master  Whitaker,  make  it 
a  perpetual  rule  to  translate  according  to  the  usual  significa- 
tion ;  for  sometimes  a  word  is  not  taken  in  the  usual  signifi- 
cation: as  Foenerator\  used  by  your  vulgar  Latin  interpreter, 
Luke  vii.,  usually  signifieth  an  usurer ;  yet  do  you  translate 
it  a  creditor.  Likewise  stabulum,  used  Luke  x.,  usually 
signifieth  a  stable,  yet  you  translate  it  an  inn.  So  navis, 
which  usually  signifieth  a  ship,  you  call  it  a  boat,  Mark  viii.; 
and  navicula,  which  usually  signifieth  a  boat,  you  call  a  ship, 
Luke  V.  And  yet  I  think  you  meant  no  wilful  corruption. 
No  more  surely  did  they  which  translated  idolura  an  image, 
and  presbyter  an  elder,  which  you  cannot  deny.  But  they 
follow  the  original  derivation  of  the  words ;  whereas  some 
of  yours  both  go  from  the  usual  signification,  and  also  from 
the  original  derivation. 

Cranmer,  Bishops'  Bible.  "Are  ye  burdened  with  traditions?"  Geneva. 
"Are  ye  subject  to  ordinances?"  Authorised.  "Why  do  you  yet  de- 
cree as  living  in  the  world?"    Rheims.     (See  c.  ii.,  n.  4.)] 

P  Luke  vii.  41.  ■^^o  XP^^'P^'-^^'''^'-  '?«■'"'  bavfia-rfj  tivi.  Vulgate, 
"Duo  debitores  erant  cuidam  fceneratori."  Rhemish  translation,  "A 
certain  creditor  had  two  debtors." 

Luke  X.  34.  ^yayev  avrov  els  ivavhoxflov.  Vulgate,  "  duxit  in  sta- 
bulum", rendered  by  the  Rhemish  translator,    "brought  him  to  an 


Mark  viii.  10.  f}i^as  ds  to  nXolov.  Vulg.  "ascendens  navim." 
Rhemish  translation,  "going  up  into  the  boat." 

Luke  V.  3.  (8l8a<TK(v  ■  eV  rov  nXoiov  tovs  o^Xovs.  Vulgate,  "  do- 
cebat  de  navicula  turbas."  Rhemish  version,  "he  taught  the  multi- 
tudes out  of  a  ship."] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  109 

Martin.    If  presbyter,  by  ecclesiastial  use,  be  appropriated  to  signify  Martin, 
a  priest,  no  less  than   episcopus  to  signify  a  bishop,  or   diaconus   a 
deacon  ;  and  if  they  translate  these  two  latter  accordingly,  and  the  first 
never  in  all  the  New  Testament ;  what  can  it  be  but  wilful  corruption  in  Whitak. 

p.  199. 

favour  of  this  heresy,  that  there  are  no  priests  of  the  New  Testament  1 
See  chap.  vi.  numb.  12. 

Fulke.  The  word  priest,  by  popish  abuse,  is  commonly  Fulke,10. 
taken  for  a  sacrificer,  the  same  that  sacerdos  in  Latin.  But 
the  Holy  Ghost  never  calleth  the  ministers  of  the  word  and 
sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  'lepel^,  or  sacerdotes. 
Therefore  the  translators,  to  make  a  difference  between 
the  ministers  of  the  Old  Testament  and  them  of  the  New, 
calleth  the  one,  according  to  the  usual  acception,  priests, 
and  the  other,  according  to  the  original  derivation,  elders. 
Which  distinction  seeing  the  vulgar  Latin  text  doth  always 
rightly  observe,  it  is  in  favour  of  your  heretical  sacrificing 
priesthood,  that  you  corruptly  translate  sacerdos  and  pres- 
byter always,  as  though  they  were  all  one,  a  priest,  as  though 
the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  that  distinction  in  vain,  or  that 
there  were  no  difference  between  the  priesthood  of  the  New 
Testament  and  the  Old.  The  name  of  priest,  according  to 
the  original  derivation  from  presbyter,  we  do  not  refuse  : 
but  according  to  the  common  acception  for  a  sacrificer,  we 
cannot  take  it,  when  it  is  spoken  of  the  ministry  of  the  New 
Testament.  And  although  many  of  the  ancient  fathers  have 
abusively  confounded  the  terms  of  sacerdos  and  presbyter, 
yet  that  is  no  warrant  for  us  to  translate  the  scripture,  and 
to  confound  that  which  we  see  manifestly  the  Spirit  of  God 
hath  distinguished.  For  this  cause  we  have  translated  the 
Greek  word  TrpeafivTepo^  an  elder,  even  as  your  vulgar  Latin 
translator  doth  divers  times,  as  Acts  xv.^  and  xx.^;  1  Pet.  v.\ 

\J  Acts  XV.  22.  Tore  ebo^e  rois  anoaToXois  Koi  tols  irpea^vrepocs. 
The  Vulgate  translates,  "  tunc  placuit  apostoHs  et  senioribus."  This 
latter  word  is  rendered  "  elders"  by  the  translations  of  1534,  1539,  and 
Geneva,  1557.    "  Auncients,"  by  the  Rhemish  version."] 

(^*  Acts  XX.  17.  /ifTEKoXeaaro  rovs  Trpecr^uTepovs.  Vulgate,  "  Vocavit 

[*  1  Pet.  V.  1.  Trpecy^vrepovs  rovs  ev  irapaKaXcb.  Vulgate, 
"Seniores  ergo,  qui  in  vobis  sunt."  Rhemish  version,  "The  seniors 
therefore  that  are  among  you." 

See  also  Acts  ii.  17.  '<«''  °'  npea-^vrtpoi,  &c.  Vulgate,  "Seniores." 
Acts  iv.  5.  id.] 




and  elsewhere  calleth  them  seniores  or  majores  natu, 
which  you  commonly  call  the  ancients,  or  seniors,  be- 
cause you  dare  not  speak  English,  and  say  "  the  elders." 
Neither  is  presbyter  by  ecclesiastical  use  so  appropriated  to 
signify  a  priest,  that  you  would  always  translate  it  so  in  the 
Old  Testament,  where  your  vulgar  translator  useth  it  for  a 
name  of  office  and  government,  and  not  for  priests  at  any 
time.  Neither  do  we  always  translate  the  Greek  word 
episcopus  and  diaconus  for  a  bishop  and  a  deacon,  but  some- 
times for  an  overseer,  as  Act.  xx.,  and  a  minister  generally 

The  word  haptisma,  by  ecclesiastical  use,  signilieth  the 
holy  sacrament  of  baptism ;  yet  are  you  enforced,  Mark  vii., 
to  translate  haptismata  "  washings."  Even  so  do  we,  to  ob- 
serve that  distmction,  wliich  the  apostles  and  evangelists 
always  do  keep,  when  we  call  sacerdotes  priests,  for  differ- 
ence we  call  preshyteros  elders,  and  not  lest  the  name  of 
priests  should  enforce  the  popish  sacrifice  of  the  mass.  For 
tliis  word  presbyter  will  never  comprehend  a  sacrificer,  or 
a  sacrificing  priesthood. 


Martin.  If  foi'  God's  altar  they  translate  temple,  and  for  Bel's  idolo- 
latrical  table  they  translate  altar ;  judge  whether  it  be  not  of  purpose 
against  our  altars,  and  in  favour  of  their  communion-table.  See  chap. 
xvii.  numb.  15,  16. 



Fidke.  If  there  be  any  such  mistaking  of  one  word 
for  another,  I  think  it  was  the  fault  of  the  printer  rather 
than  of  the  translator ;  for  the  name  of  altar  is  more  than 
a  hundred  times  in  the  bible :  and  unto  the  story  of  Bel 
we  attribute  so  small  credit,  that  we  will  take  no  testimony 
from  thence,  to  prove  or  disprove  anytliing. 

printed  again 

Mahtin,  Martin.     If  at  the  beginning  of  their  heresy,  when  sacred  images 

Bib  in  king  "^^^'^  broken  in  pieces,  altars  digged  down,  the  catholic  church's  autho- 
Edw^^time,^^  rity  defaced,  the  king  made  supreme  head,  then  their  translation  was 
made  accordingly ;  and  if  afterward,  when  these  errors  were  weU  estab- 
lished in  the  realm,  and  had  taken  root  in  the  people's  hearts,  aU  was 
altered  and  changed  in  their  later  translations,  and  now  they  could  not 
find  that  in  the  Greek,  wjiich  was  in  the  former  translation ;  what  was 
it  at  the  first,  but  wilful  corruption  to  serve  the  time  that  then  was  ? 
See  chap.  iii.  5.  chap.  xvii.  numb.  15,  chap.  xv.  numb.  22. 


Fulke.  For  images,  altars,  the  catholic  church's  autho-  Fulke, 
rity,  the  'king's  supremacy,  nothing  is  altered  in  the  latter  ^' 
translations,  that  was  falsely  translated  in  the  former,  except 
perhaps  the  printer's  fault  be  reformed.  Neither  can  any 
thing  be  proved  to  maintain  the  popish  images,  altars,  church's 
authority,  or  pope's  supremacy,  out  of  any  translation  of  the 
scriptures,  or  out  of  the  original  itself.  Therefore  our  trans- 
lations were  not  framed  according  to  the  time ;  but  if  any 
thing  were  not  uttered  so  plainly  or  so  aptly  as  it  might, 
why   should  not   one  translation  help  another  ? 

Martin,     If  at  the  first  revolt,  when  none  were  noted  for  hei'etics  Martin, 


and  schismatics  but  themselves,   they  did  not  once  put  the  names  of     ' 

schism  or  heresy   in   the  bible  ^,   but  instead  thereof  division  and  sect,  Bib.  1562. 
insomuch  that  for  an  heretic  they  said,  an  author  of  sects ;  what  may ' 
we  judge  of  it  but  as  of  wilful  corruption  ?     See  chap.  iv.  numb.  3. 

Fulke.  Yes,  reasonable  men  may  judge,  that  they  did  Fulke, 
it  to  shew  unto  the  ignorant  people,  what  the  names  of 
schismatic  and  heretic  do  signify,  rather  than  to  make  them 
beheve,  that  heresy  and  schism  was  not  spoken  against  in 
the  scripture.  That  they  translated  heresy  sect,  they  did 
it  by  example  of  your  vulgar  Latin  interpreter,  who,  in  the 
24th  of  the  Acts'",  translateth  the  Greek  word  alpearew^  sectce. 
In  which  chapter  likewise,  as  he  also  hath  done,  they  have 
translated  the  same  word  heresy. 

Martin.    If  they  translate  so  absurdly  at  the  first,  that  themselves  Martin, 
are  driven  to  change  it  for  shame ;  it  must  needs  be  at  the  first  wil-  '^'*' 
ful  corruption.     For  example,  when  it  was  in  the  first  temple,  and  in 
the  later  altar;    in  the  first  always  congregation,   in   the   later  always 
church ;  in  the  first,  "  to  the  king  as  chief  head,"  in  the  later,  "  to  the 

[}  Titus  iii.  10.  AlperiKov  avOpanrov  fi€Ta  fiiav  kul  devrepav  vov- 
dea-iav  TrapaiTov.  Wiclif,  1380,  renders  it,  "  Eschew  thou  a  man  here- 
tic ;"  and  Tyndale,  1534,  "  A  man  that  is  given  to  heresy,  after  the  first 
and  second  admonition,  avoid."  Cranmer's  version  1539,  and  1 562,  has, 
"  A  man  that  is  author  of  sects,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition, 
avoid."  The  Geneva  versions  of  1557,  1560,  1577,  1580,  have,  "  Re- 
ject him  that  is  an  heretic,  after  once  or  twice  admonition."  The 
Rhemish,  Bishops'  1584,  and  Authorised  1611,  "A  man  that  is  an 
heretic,  after  the  first  and  second  admonition,  avoid."] 

P  Acts  xxiv.  5.  rrjs  tuiu  ^a^wpaicov  alp^a-ems.  Vulgate,  "  Sectae 
Nazarenorum."  Rhemish  version,  "  Sect  of  the  Nazarenes."  "  Sect  of 
the  Nazarites,"  edit.  1534,  1531),  1557.] 

112  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

king  as  having  pre-eminence."  So  did  Beza  first  translate  carcase,  and 
afterward  soul^.  Which  aUeration  in  all  these  places  is  so  great,  that  it 
could  not  be  negligence  at  the  first  or  ignorance,  but  a  plain  heretical 
intention.  See  chap.  xvii.  numb.  15,  chap.  v.  numb.  4,  5,  chap.  xv. 
numb.  22,  chap.  vii.  numb.  2. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     Nay,  it  may  be  an  oversight,  or  escape  of  neg- 

ligence, or  the  printer's  fault,  as  it  is  manifest  in  that  quarrel 
you  make  of  temple  for  altar :  for  in  Thomas  Matthew's 
translation,  the  first  that  was  printed  in  English  with  au- 
thority, there  is  altar  in  both  places,  1  Cor.  ix,  and  x.  For 
the  term  congregation  changed  into  church,  it  was  not  for 
shame  of  the  former,  which  was  true,  but  because  the  other 
term  of  church  was  now  well  understood,  to  shew  that  the 
word  of  scripture  agreeth  with  the  word  of  om'  creed ;  or 
perhaps  to  avoid  your  fond  quarrel,  not  now  first  picked,  to 
the  term  congregation.  Whereas  the  former  was,  "  To  the 
king  or  chief  head,"  the  latter  saying,  "  the  king  as  having 
pre-eminence,"  doth  nothing  derogate  unto  the  former,  and 
the  former  is  contained  under  the  latter.  For  I  hope  you 
will  grant,  that  the  king  is  chief  head  of  his  people ;  or  if 
the  word  Jiead  displease  you  (be'cause  you  are  so  good  a 
Frenchman),  tell  us  what  chief  doth  signify,  but  an  head  ? 
Now  tliis  place  of  Peter  speaketh  not  particularly  of  the 
king's  authority  over  the  Church,  or  in  church  matters : 
therefore  if  it  had  been  translated  "  supreme  head,"  we  could 
have  gained  no  greater  argument  for  the  supremacy  in  ques- 
tion, than  we  may  by  the  word  pre-eminence,  or  by  the 
word  extolling,  which  you  use^.  That  Beza  altered  the  word 
cadaver  into   animam,    I  have  shewed  he   did  it   to  avoid 

P  OvK  fyKaraXei-^fis  ttjv  ^vx^v  fiov  els  abov.  "  Non  derelinques 
animam  meam,"  Edit.  1582.  "Non  derelinques  cadaver  meum,"  Edit. 
1556.  Nov.  Test.  Bezse.  "Because  thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in 
grave,"  New  Test,  translated  out  of  Greek  by  Beza,  Englished  by 
L.  Tomson.  C.  Barker,  1583.  fol.] 

P  Extolling  a  mistake  apparently  for  excelling.  The  translations 
alluded  to  here  are  of  1  Pet.  ii.  13 :  'YTroTayijTf  ovv  ivaa-ri  avSpooirlvrj 
Kvlaei  8ia  rov  Kvpiov'  eiVe  jSacrtXcZ,  as  invepexovri.  "  Whether  it  be 
unto  the  king  as  unto  the  chief  head,"  Tyndale,  1534 ;  Cranmer,  1539 ; 
Geneva,  1557.  "  VVliether  it  be  unto  the  king  as  unto  the  superior," 
Geneva,  1660.  "Whether  it  be  to  the  king,  as  excelling,"  Rheims,  1582. 
"AVliether  it  be  unto  the  king  as  having  the  pre-eminence,"  Bishops' 
Bible,  1584.  ""VVliether  it  be  to  the  king  as  supreme."  Authorised 
version,  1611.] 


oifenco,  and  because  the  latter  is  more  proper  to  the  Greek, 
although  'the  Hebrew  word,  which  David  doth  use,  may 
and  doth  signify  a  dead  body   or   carcase. 

Martin.  If  they  will  not  stand  to  all  their  translations,  but  fly  to  Martin, 
that  namely,  which  now  is  read  in  their  churches^ :  and  if  that  which 
is  now  read  in  their  churches,  differ  in  the  points  aforesaid  from  that 
that  was  read  in  their  churches  in  king  Edward's  time ;  and  if  from 
both  these  they  fly  to  the  Geneva  bible,  and  from  that  again  to  the 
other  aforesaid :  what  shall  we  judge  of  the  one  or  the  other,  but  that 
all  is  voluntary,  and  as  they  list  ?  See  chap.  iii.  numb.  10,  11,  12,  chap. 
X.  numb.  12. 

Fulke.  If  of  three  translations  we  prefer  that  which  Fulke, 
is  the  best,  what  sign  of  corruption  is  this  ?  If  any  faidt 
have,  either  of  ignorance  or  neghgence,  escaped  in  one,  which 
is  corrected  in  another,  and  we  prefer  that  which  is  corrected 
before  that  which  is  faulty,  what  corruption  can  be  judged 
in  either  ?  Not  every  fault  is  a  wilful  corruption,  and  much 
less  an  heretical  corruption.  The  example  that  you  quote 
out  of  your  3rd  chapter,  concerning  the  translation  of 
idolum,  is  no  flying  from  our  translation  to  another,  but 
a  confutmg  of  Howlet's  cavil  against  our  church  service ; 
because  this  word  is  therein  read  translated  an  image, 
1  John  v.*,  whereas  in  that  bible,  which  by  authority  is 
to  be  read  in  the  church  service,  the  word  in  the  text  is 
idols,  and  not  images ;  and  yet  will  we  justify  the  other  to 
be  good  and  true,  which  readeth,  "  Babes,  keep  yourselves 

P  Archbishop  Parker's  translation,  commonly  called  the  Bishops' 
Bible,  was  first  printed  in  folio  in  the  year  1568,  and  in  4to.  in 
1569.  It  was  ordered,  in  the  Convocation  of  1571,  (Wilkins,  Cone. 
Vol.  IV.  p.  263.)  that  copies  should  be  provided  by  all  dignitaries  for 
their  private  houses,  and  by  all  church  officers  for  the  use  of  their 
cathedral  and  parish  churches.  (See  Constitutions  and  Canons  Eccle- 
siastical, in  Dr  Cardwell's  Synodalia,  Vol.  i.  p.  123.  Documentaiy 
Annals,  Vol.  ii.  p.  11.)  The  edition  quoted  in  these  notes  is  that 
printed  by  Barker,  fol.  1584. 

The  Injunctions  of  Edw.  VI.  1547,  do  not  specify  what  particular 
translation  shall  be  used :  neither  do  Queen  Elizabeth's  in  1559.] 

r*  TeKvia,  (PvXd^aTe  eavroiis  ano  twv  ilbmKoiv,  1  John  v.  21.  *' Filioli, 
custodite  vos  a  simulacris,"  Vulgate.  "Babes,  keep  yourselves  from 
images,"  Tyndale,  1534;  Cranmer,  1539.  "Babes,  keep  yourselves 
from  idols,"  Geneva,  1557,  1560;  Bishops'  Bible,  1584;  Rhemish,  1582; 
Authorised  Version,  1611.] 

r  1  S 

[fulke. J 







from  images,"  as  your  vulgar  Latin  text  is  a  simulacris, 
wherein  you  fly  from  your  own  authentical  text  to  the  Greek, 
which,  except  you  think  it  make  for  your  purpose,  you  are 
not  ashamed  to  count  falsified  and  corrupted. 

Martin.  If  they  gladly  use  these  words  in  ill  part,  where  they  are 
not  in  the  original  text,  procession,  shrines,  devotions,  excommunicate, 
images;  and  avoid  these  words  which  are  in  the  original,  hymns, 
grace,  mystery,  sacrament,  church,  altar,  priests,  catholic  traditions, 
justifications ;  is  it  not  plain  that  they  do  it  of  purpose  to  disgrace  or 
suppress  the  said  tilings  and  speeches  used  in  the  catholic  church  1  See 
chap.  xxi.  numb.  5,  and  seq.  chap.  xii.  numb.  3. 

Fulke.  Who  would  be  so  mad,  but  blind  mahce,  to 
tliink  they  would  disgrace  or  suppress  the  things  or  names 
of  catholic  church,  whereof  they  acknowledge  themselves 
members ;  of  grace,  by  which  they  confess  they  are  saved ; 
of  hymns,  which  they  use  to  the  praise  of  God ;  of  justi- 
fications, when  they  profess  they  are  of  themselves  unjust ; 
of  sacraments  and  mysteries,  by  which  the  benefits  of  Christ 
are  sealed  up  unto  them  ;  of  altar,  when  they  believe  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  our  altar ;  of  priests,  when  they  hold  that 
all  good  Christians  are  priests ;  of  devotions,  when  they 
dispute  that  ignorance  is  not  the  mother  of  true  devotion, 
but  knowledge ;  of  excommunication,  which  they  practise  daily  ? 
As  for  the  names  and  things  of  procession,  slirines,  images, 
traditions  beside  the  holy  Scriptures  in  rehgion,  they  have 
just  cause  to  abhor.  Neither  do  they  use  the  one  sort  of 
terms,  without  probable  ground  out  of  the  original  text ; 
nor  avoid  the  other,  but  upon  some  good  special  cause,  as 
in  the  several  places  (when  we  are  charged  with  them)  shall 



Martin.  If  in  a  case  that  malceth  for  them  they  strain  the  very 
original  signification  of  the  word,  and  in  a  case  that  maketh  against 
them  they  neglect  it  altogether;  what  is  this  but  wilful  and  of  pur- 
pose?    See  chap.  vii.  numb.  36. 

Fulke.  I  answer,  we  strain  no  words  to  signify  other- 
wise than  the  nature  and  use  of  them  will  afford  us, 
neither  do  we  spare  to  express  that  which  hath  a  shew  against 
us,  if  the  property  or  usual  signification  of  the  word,  with 
the  circumstance  of  the  place,   do  so  require  it. 

1.]  TRANSLATIONS   OP    THE    BIBLE.  115 

Martin.     If  in  words  of  ambiguous  and  diverse  signification  they  Martin, 
will  have  it  signify  here  or  there  as  it  pleaseth  them ;   and  that  so  ^^' 
vehemently,  that  here  it  must  needs  so  signify,  and  there  it  must  not; 
and  both   this   and  that   to  one  end,  and  in  favour  of  one  and  the 
same  opinion;  what  is  this  but  wilful  translation?    So  doth  Beza  urge  Bezain 
yvvdiKa  to  signify  wife,  and  not  to  signify  wife,  both  against  virginity  and  ix.  5.' 
and  chastity  of  priests :  and  the  English  bible  translateth  accordingly.    '  •  ^"-    '  • 
See  chap.  xv.  numb.  11,  12. 

Fulke.  To  the  general  charge  I  answer  generally,  Fulke, 
We  do  not  as  you  slander  us ;  nor  Beza,  whom  you  shame-  ^^' 
fully  behe,  to  urge  the  word  yvvaiKa,  1  Cor.  vh.  1^  not  to 
signify  a  wife,  against  virginity  and  chastity  of  priests ;  for 
clean  contrariwise,  he  reproveth  Erasmus  restraining  it  to 
a  wife,  which  the  apostle  saith  generally,  "It  is  good  for  a. 
man  not  to  touch  a  woman ;"  which  doth  not  only  contam  a 
commendation  of  virginity  in  them  that  be  unmarried,  but 
also  of  continency  in  them  that  be  married.  And  as  for 
the  virginity  or  chastity  of  priests,  he  speaketh  not  one  word 
of  it  in  that  place,  no  more  than  the  apostle  doth. 

Now,  touching  the  other  place  that  you  quote,  1  Cor.  ix.  5^, 

['  Bonum  fuerit  viro  mulierem  non  attingere,  is  the  rendering  of 
Beza's  version,  upon  which  he  has  these  remarks:  Mulierem  non  at- 
tingere, yvvaiKos  nff  airTeadai.  Erasmus,  uxorem  non  attingere,  id  est, 
(ut  ipse  interpretatur)  ab  uxore  ducenda  abstinere.  Ego  vero  existi- 
mo  Paulum  verbo  anrea-dai  signiiicasse  in  genere  viri  cum  muliere 
congressum:  quem  tamen  per  se  non  damnat,  quum  eo  velit  homines 
ut  remedio  uti,  idque  in  matrimonio,  si  continere  se  non  possint,  minime 
id  facturus  si  malum  esset  conjugium.  Nam  praecipit  quidem  humana 
prudentia,  ut  ex  duobus  malis  quod  minus  malum  est  eligamus : 
Christiana  vero  religio  contra,  ut  quicquid  malum  est  sine  ulla  ex- 
ceptione  vitemus.  Falsa  est  igitur  Hieronymi  doctrina,  qui  adversus 
Jovinianum  disserens,  verbum  aiTTfo-Bai  ita  urget,  quasi  in  ipso  etiam 
mulieris  contactu  sit  periculum :  quum  constet  virum  non  minus  bona 
conscientia  uti  posse  ac  debere  uxore  sua  quam  esca  et  potu,  ut 
recte  defendit  Augustinus.    Nov.  Test.  1556.] 

P  The  words  are  (1  Cor.  ix.  5.),  /^v  ovk.  expfiev  i^ova-lav  abek^i)v 
yvvaiKa  ivepiayeiv,  a5y  koX  oi  Xoiiroi  aTtocTTokoi. ;  Translated  in  Tyndale's 
version  of  1534:  "Either,  have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister 
to  wife,  as  well  as  other  apostles?"  In  Cranmer's,  1539:  "Have  we 
not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister  to  wife,  as  well  as  other  apostles?" 
In  the  Geneva  version,  1557:  "Either,  have  we  not  power  to  lead 
about  a  wife,  being  a  sister,  as  well  as  other  apostles  ?"    The  Rhemish 


116  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH, 

Beza  doth  truly  translate  d^€\(j)iju  yvvaiKa,  "a  sister  to  wife," 
because  the  word  sister  is  first  placed,  which  comprehendcth 
a  woman,  and  therefore  the  word  yvvaiKa  following  must 
needs  expHcate,  what  woman  he  meaneth,  namely,  a  wife. 
For  it  were  absurd  to  say,  a  sister  a  woman.  Therefore 
the  vulgar  Latin  interpreter  perverteth  the  words,  and  saith, 
mulierem  sororem.  It  is  true,  that  many  of  the  ancient  fathers, 
as  too  much  addict  to  the  singleness  of  the  clergy,  though 
they  did  not  altogether  condemn  marriage  in  them,  as  the 
papists  do,  did  expound  the  sister,  whereof  St  Paul  speaketh, 
of  certain  rich  matrons,  which  followed  the  apostles  whither- 
soever they  went,  and  ministered  to  them  of  their  substance ;  as 
we  read  that  many  did  to  our  Saviour  Christ,  Matt,  xxvii.  55. 
Luke  viii.  3.  But  that  exposition  cannot  stand,  nor  agree 
with  this  text  for  many  causes.  First,  the  placing  of  the 
words,  which  I  have  before  spoken  of.  Secondly,  this  word, 
yvvoLKa,  were  needless,  except  it  should  signify  a  wife :  for 
the  word  sister  signifieth  both  a  woman  and  a  faithful 
woman;  and  otherwise  it  was  not  to  be  doubted,  lest  the 
apostle  would  lead  a  heathen  woman  with  him.  Thirdly, 
the  apostle  speaketh  of  one  woman,  and  not  many ;  whereas 
there  were  many  that  followed  our  Saviour  Christ,  whereas 
one  alone  to  follow  the  apostle  might  breed  occasion  of  ill 
suspicion  and  offence,  which  many  could  not  so  easily. 
Fourthly,  those  that  are  mentioned  in  the  gospel  our  Saviour 
Christ  did  not  lead  about,  but  they  did  voluntarily  follow 
him :  but  the  apostle  here  saith,  that  he  had  authority,  as 
the  rest  of  the  apostles,  to  lead  about  a  woman,  wliich  ar- 
gueth  the  right  that  an  husband  hath  over  his  wife,  or  of 
a  master  over  his  maid.  Fifthly,  it  is  not  all  one,  if  women 
could  travel  out  of  Galilee  to  Jerusalem,  which  was  nothing 
near  an  hundred  miles,  that  women  could  follow  the  apostles 
into  all  parts  of  the  world.  Sixthly,  if  the  cause  why  such 
women  are  supposed  to  have  followed  the  apostles,  was  to 
minister  to  them  of  their  substance,  the  leading  them  about 
was  not  burdenous  to  the  church,  but  helpful :  but  the  apostle 
testifieth,  that  he  forbare  to  use  this  hberty,  because  he  would 

version,  1582,  has  it:  "Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  woman,  a 
sister,  as  also  the  rest  of  the  apostles?"  The  Authorised  Version, 
1611:  "Have  we  not  power  to  lead  about  a  sister,  a  wife,  as  well  as 
other  apostles  ?"] 


not  be  burdenous  to  the  church  of  Corinth,  or  to  any  of 
them.  Seventhly,  seeing  it  is  certain  that  Peter  had  a  wife, 
and  the  rest  of  the  apostles  are  by  antiquity  reputed  to  have 
been  all  married ;  it  is  not  credible  that  Peter,  or  any  of 
the  rest,  would  leave  the  company  of  their  own  wives,  and 
lead  strange  women  about  with  them.  As  for  the  objection 
that  you  make  in  your  note  upon  the  text,  To  what  end 
should  he  talk  of  burdening  the  Corinthians  with  finding 
liis  wife,  when  he  himself  clearly  saith  that  he  was  single  ? 
I  answer.  Although  I  think  he  was  single,  yet  is  it  not  so 
clear  as  you  make  it ;  for  Clemens  Alexandrinus  thinketh 
he  had  a  wife,  which  he  left  at  Phihppi  by  mutual  consent. 
But  albeit  he  were  single,  it  was  lawful  for  Mm  to  have 
married,  and  Barnabas  also,  as  well  as  all  the  rest  of  the' 
apostles.  Again,  to  what  end  should  he  talk  of  burdening 
the  church  with  a  woman,  which  was  not  his  wife,  when 
such  women,  as  you  say,  ministered  to  the  apostles  of  their 
goods  ?  Whereby  it  should  follow,  that  none  of  the  apostles 
burdened  the  churches  where  they  preached  with  their  own 
finding,  which  is  clean  contrary  to  the  apostle's  words  and 
meaning.  Wherefore  the  translation  of  Beza,  and  of  our 
church,   is  most  true   and  free  from   all   corruption. 

Martin.  If  the  puritans  and  grosser  Calvinists  disagree  about  the  Martin, 
translations,  one  part  preferring  the  Geneva  English  bible,  the  other  the 
bible  read  in  their  church ;  and  if  the  Lutherans  condemn  the  Zuinglians' 
and  Calvinists'  translations,  and  contrariwise ;  and  if  all  sectaries  reprove 
each  another's  translation ;  what  doth  it  argue,  but  that  the  translations 
differ  according  to  their  diverse  opinions?  See  their  books  written  one 
against  another. 

Fulke.  Here  again  is  nothing  but  a  general  charge  of  Fulke, 
(Hsagreeing  about  translations,  of  puritans  and  Calvinists,  Lu-  ^^• 
therans  and  Zuinghans,  and  of  all  sectaries  reproving  one  ano- 
ther's translation,  with  as  general  a  demonstration,  "  See  the 
books  written  one  against  another ;"  which  would  ask  longer 
time  than  is  needful  to  answer  such  a  vain  cavil,  when  it 
is  always  sufiicient  to  deny  that  wliich  is  affirmed  without 
certain  proof. 


Martin.    If  the  English  Geneva  bibles  themselves  dare  not  follow  20. 
their  master  Beza,  whom  they  profess  to  translate,   because  in  their  acu^I'u^ 




"•  23;  iii. 21;  opinion  he  goetli  wide,  and  that  in  places  of  controversy;  how  wilful 
2  Tiiess.  ii.  15.  WES  he  iQ  SO  translating  !  See  chap.  xii.  numb.  6,  8  ;  chap.  xiii.  numb.  1. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     It  is  a  very  impudent  slander.      The  Geneva 

^^'  bibles  do  not  profess  to  translate  out  of  Beza's  Latin  trans- 

lation ^  but  out  of  the  Hebrew  and  Greek ;  and  if  they  agree 
not  always  with  Beza,  what  is  that  to  the  purpose,  if  they 
agree  with  the  truth  of  the  original  text?  Beza  oftentimes 
followeth  the  purer  phrase  of  the  Latin  tongue,  wliich  they 
neither  would  nor  might  follow  in  the  Enghsh.  If  in  cHs- 
senting  from  Beza,  or  Beza  from  them,  they  or  he  dissent 
from  the  truth,  it  is  of  human  frailty,  and  not  of  heretical 
wilfulness.  The  places  being  examined  shall  discover  your 



Martin.  If  for  the  most  part  they  reprehend  the  old  vulgar  trans- 
lation, and  appeal  to  the  Greek ;  and  yet  in  places  of  controversy  some- 
time for  their  more  advantage  (as  they  think)  they  leave  the  Greek, 
and  follow  our  Latin  translation;  what  is  it  else,  but  voluntary  and 
l^artial  translation?  See  chap.  ii.  numb.  8,  chap.  vi.  numb.  10,  21, 
chap.  vii.  numb.  39,  chap.  x.  numb.  6. 

Fulke.  We  never  leave  the  Greek  to  follow  your  vulgar 
translation,  as  in  the  places  by  you  quoted  I  will  prove  mani- 
festly :  but  I  have  already  proved  that  you  leave  the  Latin 
and  appeal  to  the  Greek,  in  translating  simulacra,  idols, 
Col.  iii.  and  1  John  v. 


Beza,  Lukel 
Rom.  ii. 
Rev.  six.  8. 
Beza  in 
Kev.  xjx.  8. 



Martin.  If  otherwise  they  avoid  this  word  justifications^  altogether, 
and  yet  translate  it  when  they  cannot  choose,  but  with  a  commentaiy 
that  it  signifieth  good  works  that  are  testimonies  of  a  lively  faith ;  doth 
not  this  heretical  commentary  shew  their  heretical  meaning,  when  they 
avoid  the  word  altogether  ?     See  chap.  viii.  numb.  1,  2,  3. 

Fulke.     To  avoid  the  word  altogether,  and  yet  sometime 
to  translate  it,  I  see  not  how  they  can  stand  together ;  for 

\}  The  Geneva  bible,  edit.  Rouland  Hall,  1560,  professes,  on  the 
title  page,  to  be  "translated  according  to  the  Ebrue  and  Greke,  and 
conferred  with  the  best  translations  in  divers  languages."] 

[2  TTopevofievoi  iv  Traaais  rais  ivTokais  Kai  diKaicofiacri.  Luke  i.  6. 
"Incedentes  in  omnibus  mandatis  et  constitutionibus."  Vulgate.  "Ince- 
dentes  in  omnibus  mandatis  et  constitutionibus."  Beza's  version. 
"Going  in  all  the  maundementis  and  justifiyngis."  Wiclif.  "Walked 
in  all  the  laws  and  oi'dinances."  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "Commandments 
and  ordinances."    Geneva,  Bishops'  Bible,  Authorised.] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  119 

he  that  cloth  sometimes  translate  it,  doth  not  altogether  avoid 
it.  But  you  will  say,  they  do  altogether  avoid  it  in  all  such 
places  where  they  do  not  translate  it.  That  is  altogether 
false ;  for  the  Geneva  translation,  Luke  i.^,  telleth  you  that 
the  Greek  word  signifieth  justifications,  and  yieldeth  a  rea- 
son why  it  doth  in  that  place  otherwise  translate  it :  and 
if  to  translate  the  Greek  word  oiKaicDtia  otherwise  than 
justification,  must  needs  shew  an  heretical  meaning,  then  must 
you  needs  say,  that  your  vulgar  Latin  translator  had  an 
heretical  meaning ;  for  in  the  second  place  by  you  quoted, 
namely,  Rom.  ii.  26,  he  translateth  it  justitias*,  hkewise 
Rom.  i.  32^  justitiam,  so  hkewise  Rom.  v.  18^  And  if  it  be 
an  heretical  commentary,  to  say  that  good  works  are  a 
testimony  of  a  lively  faith,  you  will  also  condemn  the  apostles- 
of  heresy,  Avhich  teach  it  to  be  impossible  to  please  God 
without  faith,  Heb.  xi.,  and  that  whatsoever  is  not  of  faith, 
is  sin,  Rom.  xiv.,  if  there  be  any  good  works  that  are 
not  testimonies  of  a  lively  faith.  But  it  is  sufficient  for  you 
to  call  what  you  will  heresy,  and  heretical  falsification,  and 
corruption ;  for  your  disciples  are  bound  to  beheve  you, 
though  you  say  the  gospel  be  heresy,  and  the  apostles  them- 
selves heretics.  Gregory  Martin  calleth  this  an  heretical 
commentary ;  what  need  you  seek  other  proof? 

Martin.    Wlaen  by  adding  to  the  text  at  tlieir  pleasure  they  make  Martin, 
the  apostle  say,  that  by  Adam's  offence  sin  came  on  all  men,  but  that  ~"^' 
by  Christ's  justice  the  benefit  only  abounded  toward  all  men,  not  that  No"Telt.'an. 
justice  came  on  all;  whereas  the  apostle  maketh  the  case  alike,  with-  j^^g-  ^''^• 
out  any  such  diverse  additions,  to  wit,  that  we  are  truly  made  just  by  '^o'^-  '^-  ^^^ 
Christ,  as  by  Adam  we  are  made  sinners :  is  not  tliis  most  wilful  cor- 
ruption for  their  heresy  of  imputative  and  phantastical  justice?     See 
chap.  xi.  numb.  1. 

P  The  Geneva  Bible  1560,  has  this  note  on  Luke  i.  6.  "  The  Greek 
word  signifieth  justifications,  whereby  is  meant  the  outward  observation 
of  the  ceremonies  commanded  by  God."] 

[4  Ta  BiKaiafiaTa  tov  vofiov  (pvXdaaj).  Rom.  ii.  26.  "  Justitias  legis 
custodiat."    Vulgate.] 

P  olrives  TO  StKa/u/ia  tov  Qeov  iniyvovTes.  Rom.  i.  32.  "  Qui  cum 
justitiam  Dei  cognovissent."    Vulg.] 

I^**  oxjTd)  Koi  hi  ivos  diKaicofiaros  els  navras  avdpanrovs,  els  biKaiaxnv 
Cioijs.  Rom.  v.  18.  "Sic  et  per  unius  justitiam  in  omnes  homines  in 
justificationem  vitte."  SiKoiot  KaTa(TTadt'}crovTai  ol  ttoXXoi.  Rom.  v.  19. 
"Many  schuln  be  just."  AViclif.  "Shall  many  be  made  righteous." 
Tyndale,  Cranmerj  Geneva,  Authorised.] 

120  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH» 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     The  verse  by  you  quoted,   Rom.  v.   18',  is  a 

manifest  eclipsis  or  defective  speech,  to  make  any  sense 
whereof  there  must  needs  be  added  a  nominative  case  and 
a  verb.  Now  by  what  other  nominative  case  and  verb  may 
the  sense  be  suppHed,  but  by  that  which  the  apostle  him- 
self giveth  before,  ver.  15.  ?  unto  which"  all  that  followeth 
must  be  referred  for  expHcation :  where  he  saith,  as  you 
yourselves  translate  it,  "If  by  the  offence  of  one  many 
died,  much  more  the  grace  of  God  and  the  gift  in  the 
grace  of  one  man  Jesus  Christ  hath  abounded  upon  many." 
Seeing  therefore  that  defective  speech  must  be  supphed  for 
understanding  in  tliis  probation,  what  is  so  apt  as  that  which 
the  apostle  himself  hath  expressed  before  in  the  proposition  ? 
Although  you  m  your  translation  are  not  disposed  to  supply 
it,  because  you  had  rather  the  text  should  be  obscure  and 
wondered  at,  than  that  it  should  be  plain  and  easy,  or  able 
to  be  understood :  albeit  in  other  places  you  stick  not  to 
add  such  words  as  be  necessary  for  exphcation  of  the  text, 
as  every  translator  must  do,  if  he  will  have  any  sense  to 
bo  understood  in  liis  translation.  For  that  defective  speech, 
which   in   some  tongue  is   well  understood,  in   some   other 

[}  "Therefore  as  by  the  guilt  of  one  into  all  men  into  condemna- 
tion, 80  by  the  righteousness  of  one  into  all  men  into  justifying  of 
life."  Wiclif.  "Likewise,  then,  as  by  the  sin  of  one  condemnation 
came  on  all  men,  even  so  by  the  justifying  of  one  cometh  the  right- 
eousness that  bringeth  life  upon  all  men."  Tyndale.  "Likewise,  then, 
as  by  the  offence  of  one  gUtship  came  on  all  men  to  condemnation; 
even  so,  by  the  justifying  of  one,  the  benefit  abounded  upon  all  men 
to  the  justification  of  life."  Geneva.  "  Therefore,  as  by  the  off'ence  of 
one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  condemnation;  even  so,  by  the 
righteousness  of  one,  the  free  gift  came  upon  all  men  imto  justification 
of  life."    Authorised  version. 

"Apa  ovv  cos  8i  evos  wapaTrTcofiaros  els  Travras  avdpdnrovs,  els 
KaraKpip-a'  ovtm  koi  8i  tvos  diKauofMaTos,  els  Jravras  avdpanovs,  els 
8iKai(0(nv  C^fjs. 

"As  by  the  sin  of  one  (sin  came)  on  all  men  to  condemnation; 
even  so  by  the  righteousness  of  one  (good  came)  upon  aU  men,  even 
to  the  righteousness  of  life."    Rom.  v.  18.  edit.  Jugge.  1568. 

"Likewise,  then,  as  by  the  offence  of  one  (the  fault  came)  on  all 
men  to  condemnation;  so  by  the  justifying  of  one  (the  benefit  abound- 
ed) toward  all  men  to  the  justification  of  life.''  llom.  v.  18.  edit. 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  121 

is  altogether  void  of  sense,  and  must  be  explicated  by  ad- 
dition of  'that  wliich  is  necessarily  or  probably  to  be  un- 
derstood. So  you  translate,  Matth.  viii.  Quid  nobis  ?  "  What 
is  between  us?"  Mark  ii.  Post  dies^,  "after  some  days." 
Accumheret,  "  he  sat  at  meat ;"  and  many  such  like.  But 
where  you  cliarge  our  translation  to  say,  the  benefit  (only) 
abounded  toward  all  men,  not  that  justice  came  on  all ;  you 
do  shamefully  add  to  our  translation:  for  the  word  'only'  is 
of  your  own  slanderous  addition,  and  the  rest  is  your  mali- 
cious collection.  For  we  mean  not  to  extenuate  the  benefit 
of  Christ's  redemption,  but  by  all  means  to  set  it  forth  to 
the  uttermost :  as  the  word  '  abounded'  doth  shew,  if  you 
do  not  blemish  the  light  of  it  by  your  blockish  addition 
of  this  word  '  only'.  And  that  we  are  truly  made  just  by  • 
Christ,  and  yet  by  imputation,  as  we  are  truly  made  sinners 
by  Adam,  and  yet  partly  by  imputation,  as  we  are  actually 
by  corruption,  we  do  at  all  times  and  in  all  places  most  wil- 
lingly confess :  for  the  justice  of  Chi'ist  which  is  imputed 
unto  us  by  faith,  is  no  false  or  phantastical  justice,  as  you 
do  no  less  blasphemously  than  phantastically  affirm ;  but  a 
true  and  effectual  justice,  by  which  we  are  so  truly  made 
just,  that  we  shall  receive  for  it  the  crown  of  justice,  wliich 
is  eternal  life,  as  the  apostle  proveth  at  large,  Rom.  iv.  and 
v.,  whom  none  but  an  hell-hound  will  bark  against,  that 
he  defendeth  "  imputative  and  phantastical  justice." 

Martin.    But  in  this  case  of  justification,   when  the  question  is  Martin, 
whether  only  faith  justify,  and  we  say  no,  having  the  express  words  of  J^^gsii  24. 
St  James ;  they  say,  yea,  having  no  express  scripture  for  it :  if  in  this  ^^Jh'  Jonf^a 
case  they  will  add  '  only'  to  the  very  text,  is  it  not  most  horrible  and  (?'•  ''tp-  edit. 

"  "^  •'  '  Witteb.  an. 

devilish   corruption?    So  did  Luther,  whom  our  Enghsh   protestants  issi.whitak. 
honour  as  their  father,  and  in  this  heresy  of  only  faith  are  his  own 
children.     See  chap.  xii. 

Fulke.     In   the  question  of  justification  by  faith  only,  Fulke, 
Avhere  St  James  saith  no,  we  say  no  also ;   neither   can  it  ^^' 
be  proved  that  Ave  add  this  word  '  only'  to  the  text  in  any 
translation  of  ours.      If  Luther  did  in  his  translation  add  the 
word  'only'  to  the  text,  it  cannot  be  excused  of  wrong  trans- 
lation in  word,  although  the  sense  might  well  bear  it.      But 

[^  "Intravit  Caphamaum  post  dies."  Vulg.  edit.  Clem.   "Post  dies 
octo."  edit.  Sixt.] 

122  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

seeing  Luther  cloth  himself  confess  it,  he  may  be  excused 
of  fraud,  though  not  of  lack  of  judgment.  But  why  should 
our  translation  be  charged  with  Luther's  corruption?  Be- 
cause "  our  English  protestants  honour  liim  as  their  father." 
A  very  lewd  slander :  for  we  call  no  man  father  upon  earth, 
though  you  do  call  the  pope  your  father ;  albeit  in  another 
sense  Luther  was  a  reverend  father  of  the  church  for  his 
time.  But  as  toucliing  the  doctrine  of  only  faith  justifying, 
it  hath  more  patrons  of  the  fathers  of  the  ancient  primitive 
church,  than  Martin  can  bear  their  books,  though  he  would 
break  his  back,  who  in  the  same  plain  words  do  affirm  it  as 
Luther  doth,  that  only  faith  doth  justify.  And  the  apostle 
which  saith^  "  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the 
works  of  the  law,"  speaketh  more  plainly  for  justification  by 
faith  only  (as  we  do  teach  it),  than  if  he  had  said  a  man  is 
justified  by  faith  only.  Which  text  of  Rom.  iii.,  and  many 
other,  are  as  express  scripture  to  prove  that  we  teach  and 
beheve,  as  that  St  James  saith  against  justification  by  faith 
only,  where  he  speaketh  of  another  faith,  and  of  another 
justification,  than  St  Paul  speaketh  of,  and  we  understand, 
when  we  hold  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith  only,  or 
without  works  of  the  law,  which  is  all  one. 

Martin,  Martin.     If  these  that  account  themselves  the  great  Grecians  and 

25.  Hebricians  of  the  world,  will  so  translate  for  the  advantage  of  their  cause, 

ranee  of  the    as  though  they  had  no  skill  in  the  world,  and  as  thouarh  they  knew 

Greek  and  -ii-.r..  n  i  •  ci 

Hebrew  neither  the  signification  of  words,  nor  propriety  of  phrases  in  the  said 
their"feise      language ;  is  it  not  to  be  esteemed  shameless  corruption? 

and  wilful 

translation  r~<    ii  -^r  ^  '  n    '  i  ii 

thereof  J'lUke.     I  OS  1  but  II  it  camiot  be  proved  that  so  thev 

against  their  i  i  • 

knowledge,    translate,  then  is  this  an  impudent  slander,  as  all  the  rest 

25.  '     are ;  and  so  it  will  prove  when  it  cometh  to  be  tried. 

Martin,  Martin.   I  will  not  speak  of  the  German  heretics,  who  to  maintain  this 

26.  heresy,  that  all  our  works,  be  they  never  so  good,  are  sin,  translated  for 

Brentius.  Me-  ^n  i  '  ./  o         >  ;> 

lancth.  See  Tibi  mil  peccnvi,  "  to  thee  only  have  I  sinned,  thus,  Tibi  solum  peccavi, 
Dial.  I.  c.  12.  that  is,  "  I  have  nothing  else  but  sinned :  whatsoever  I  do,  I  sin  :"  Avhereas 
Jof  luoVw.  neither  the  Greek  nor  the  Hebrew  will  possibly  admit  that  sense.  Let 
"^llh  Tib  these  pass  as  Lutherans,  yet  Avilful  corrupters,  and  acknowledged  of  our 
wiiitai.  pag.  English    protestants   for   their  good  brethren.     But  if  Beza  translate, 


P  Rom.  iii.  28.] 

[^  Lindani  Dubitantium  Dialogus :  de  origine  Sectanim  hujus  seculL 
Colonic.  1571.  8vo.     Foppen's  Bib.  Belg.  p.  411.] 


I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  123 

ert  ovTuv  rjiibiv  aadevav  ,   "  when  we  were  yet  of  no  strength j"  as  the  Rom.  v.  6. 
Geneva    English  Bible  also  doth   interpret  it,  whereas   every  young 
Grecian  knoweth  that  aa-Bevrfs  is  weak,  feeble,  infirm,  and  not  altogether 
without  strength :  is  not  this  of  pui*pose  to  take  away  man's  free  will 
altogether  1  See  chap.  x.  numb.  13. 

Fulke.    I  know  not  what  German  heretics  those  be  which  Fulke, 

maintain  that  heresy,  that  all  our  works,  be  they  never  so 

good,  are  sin,  except  they  be  the  Libertines,  with  whom  we 
have  nothing  to  do.  For  we  never  say  that  good  works 
are  sin,  for  that  were  all  one  to  say  that  good  were  evil. 
But  that  all  our  good  works  are  short  of  that  perfection 
which  the  law  of  God  requireth,  we  do  humbly  confess 
against  ourselves :  or  else,  whatsoever  seemeth  to  be  a  good 
work,  and  is  done  of  men  void  of  true  faith,  is  sin.  For. 
these  assertions  we  have  the  scripture  to  warrant  us.  And 
if,  to  prove  the  latter,  any  man  hath  translated  those  words 
of  David  in  the  51st  psalm,  lecha,  lebadecha,  tibi  solum,  or,  ^ttj^^  ^^ 
tantummodo  tibi  peccavi,  &c.  "  To  thee  only,  or  altogether  to  '  *  * 
thee  I  have  sinned,"  in  respect  of  his  natural  corruption  wliich 
he  doth  express  in  the  next  verse,  he  hath  not  departed  one 
whit  from  the  Hebrew  words,  nor  from  the  sense  which  the 
words  may  very  well  bear ;  which  he  that  denieth,  rather 
sheweth  himself  ignorant  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  than  he 
that  so  translateth.  For  what  doth  lebad  signify,  but  solum  -y^S 
or  tantum  ?  and  therefore  it  may  as  well  be  translated  solum 
tibi,  as  soli  tibi.  And  the  apostle,  Rom.  iii.,  proving  by 
the  latter  end  of  that  verse  all  men  to  be  unjust,  that 
God  only  may  be  true,  and  every  man  a  bar,  as  it  is 
written,  "  that  thou  mayest  be  justified  in  thy  words,"  &c. 
favoureth  that  interpretation  of  Bucer,  or  whosoever  it  is 
beside.  "But  if  Beza  translate  en  ovtvov  i^fxwv  aaOevcou, 
'  when  we  were  yet  of  no  strength,'  as  the  Geneva  English 
Bible  doth  also  interpret  it,  whereas  every  young  Grecian 
knoweth  that  aaOei'ii]^  is  weak,  feeble,  infirm,  and  not  al- 
together without  strength :  is  not  this  of  purpose  to  take 
away  man's  free  will  altogether?"  Chapter  x,  numb.  13. 
Nay,  it  is  to  shew,  as  the  apostle's  purpose  is,  that  we  have  no 
strength  to  fulfil  the  law  of  God  without  the  grace  of  Christ ; 

['  "Quum  adhuc  nullis  viribus  essemus."   Beza's  version,  edit.  1556. 
"Quum  adhuc  infirmi  essemus."    Vulg.    Rom.  v.  6.] 

124  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH"  [cH. 

even  as  Christ  himself  saith,  "Without  me  you  can  do  nothing," 
John  XV.  5.  But  every  young  Grecian  (say  you)  knoweth 
that  daOeuTjs  is  weak,  feeble,  infirm,  and  not  altogether  with- 
out strength.  And  is  there  then  any  old  Grecian  that  will 
prove,  that  ao-^ecj/v  alway  signifieth  him  that  is  weak,  but 
not  void  of  strength  ?  Doth  aaOev^s  always  signify  him 
that  hath  some  strength?  Certain  it  is,  that  the  apostle 
speaketh  here  of  those  that  were  void  of  strength;  for  the 
same  he  calleth  in  the  same  verse  da€J3e7<i,  ungodly,  or  void 
of  religion,  for  whom  Christ  died.  How  say  you  then?  had 
ungodly  persons  any  strength  to  be  saved,  except  Christ  had 
died  for  them?  Therefore  he  that  in  tliis  place  translateth 
daOevi]^,  weak,  feeble,  infirm,  must  needs  understand  men  so 
weak,  feeble,  and  infirm,  as  they  have  no  strength.  For 
how  might  it  else  be  truly  said,  "  What  hast  thou  that  thou 
hast  not  received  ? "  1  Cor.  iv.  7.  Yes,  say  you,  we  have 
some  piece  of  free  will  at  least,  some  strength  to  climb  to 
heaven,  even  without  the  grace  of  God,  without  the  death 
and  redemption  of  Christ.  If  you  say  no,  why  cavil  you 
at  Beza's  translation  and  ours?  The  Greek  word  dadevrj^, 
as  great  a  Grecian  as  you  would  make  yom'self,  signifieth 
weak  or  infirm,  sometime  that  which  yet  hath  some  strength, 
sometime  that  which  hath  no  strength  at  all,  as  I  will  give 
you  a  plain  example  out  of  St  Paul,  1  Cor,  xv.  43.  The 
dead  body  is  sown  ev  daOeveia,  in  weakness :  it  riseth  again 
in  power.  Doth  not  weakness  here  signify  privation  of 
all  strength  ?  It  is  marvel  but  you  will  say,  a  dead 
body  is  not  altogether  void  of  strength.  Beza  telleth  you 
out  of  St  Paul,  Rom.  viii.  6,  that  the  wisdom  of  the 
flesh  without  Christ  is  death,  it  is  enmity  against  God,  it 
is  neither  subject  unto  the  law  of  God,  neither  can  it  be : 
where  is  the  strength  of  free  will  that  you  complain  to  be 
taken  away  by  our  translation?  Beza  doth  also  tell  you, 
that  St  Paul  calleth  all  the  ceremonies  of  the  law  daOevrj,  as 
they  are  separated  from  the  Spii'it  of  Christ,  the  weak  and 
beggarly  elements.  Gal.  iv.  Are  they  not  void  of  strength 
and  riches,  which  are  void  of  Christ's  grace  and  Spirit? 
But  your  purpose  was  only  to  quarrel,  and  seek  a  knot' 
in  a  rush ;  and  therefore  you  regarded  not  what  Beza  hath 
written  to  justify  his  translation. , 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  125 

Martin.   If  Calvin  translate,  Non  ego,  sed  gratia  Dd  qucs  mihi  aderat,  Martin, 
may  not  mean  Grecians  control  him,  that  he  also  translateth  falsely  j  cor.  xv. 
against  free  will,  because  the  preposition  (tvv  doth  require  some  other  'i  °"i"'  ^M"'* 
participle  to  be  understood,  that  should  signify  a  co-operation  with  free 
will,  to  wit,  avyKoinda-aa-a,  "  which  laboured  with  me"  ?     See  chap.  x. 
numb.  2. 

Fulke.  The  Greek  is,  »/  X"/"^  "^^^  Geou  »?  avv  e/noi,  Fulke, 
"  the  grace  of  God  which  is  with  me."  A  mean  Grecian  will 
rather  understand  the  verb  substantive,  than  the  participle, 
as  you  do,  and  then  must  needs  again  understand  the  verb 
cKOTTiaae,  "  hath  laboured."  For  thus  the  sense  must  be,  if 
your  participle  be  understood,  'I  have  laboured  more  than 
they  all,  yet  not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God  wliich  laboured 
with  me,  hath  laboured.'  Who  would  commit  such  a  vain 
tautology?  The  sense  is  therefore  plain,  which  the  apostle's 
words  do  yield  in  the  judgment  of  better  Grecians  than 
ever  G.  Martin  was,  or  will  be.  '  I  have  not  laboiu-ed 
more  than  the  rest  of  the  apostles,  of  mine  own  strength 
or  will ;  but  the  grace  of  God  which  is  in  me,  or  with  me, 
hath  given  me  greater  strength  and  abihty  to  travail  in 
the  gospel,  than  to  them.'  But  you  are  afraid  lest  it  should 
be  thought,  that  the  apostle  had  done  nothing,  like  unto  a 
block,  forced  only :  a  blockish  fear,  and  a  forced  collection. 
For  when  the  apostle  first  saith,  he  hath  laboured,  and  after 
denieth,  and  saith,  I  have  not  laboured ;  what  sensible  man 
will  not  gather,  that  in  the  former  he  laboured  as  a  man 
endued  with  hfe,  sense,  and  reason,  and  in  the  latter  that 
he  laboured  not  by  his  own  strength  or  vii-tue,  but  by  the  ♦ 
grace  of  God,  to  which  he  attributeth  all  that  he  is  in 
such  respect?  "By  the  grace  of  God  I  am  that  I  am,"  saith 
he ;  which  manifestly  excludeth  natural  free  will,  to  that 
which  is  good  and  appertaining  to  the  glory  of  God.  For 
which  cause  he  denieth  that  he  laboured  more  than  the 
rest :  "  Not  I,  but  the  grace  of  God  wliich  was  present  with 

Martin.  If  when  the  Hebrew  beareth  indifferently,  to  say,  Sin  lieth  Martin, 
at  the  door^ ;  and  unto  thee  the  desire  thereof  shall  be  subject,  and  thou  q^^  j^  ^ 
shalt  rule  over  it ;  the  Geneva  English  bible  translate  the  first  without  „„.  1579. 

[}  Explained  in  the  margin,  '"'Sin  shall  still  torment  thy  conscience." 
Geneva  bible,  1560.] 







scruple,  and  the  latter  not,  because  of  the  Hebrew  grammar ;  is  not  this 
also  most  wilful  against  free  wUl  ?    See  chap.  x.  numb.  9. 

Fulke.  I  grant  this  to  be  done  willingly  against  free 
will,  but  yet  no  false  nor  corrupt  translation.  For  in  the 
participle  rohets,  which  signifieth  lying,  is  a  manifest  enal- 
lage  or  change  of  the  gender,  to  declare  that  in  chataoth, 
which  word  being  of  the  feminine  gender  signifieth  sin,  is 
to  be  imderstood  auon,  or  some  such  word  as  signifieth  the 
punishment  of  sin,  which  may  agree  with  the  participle  in 
the  masculine  gender,  that  the  antithesis  may  be  perfect. 
*If  thou  doest  well,  shall  there  not  be  reward  or  remission? 
if  thou  doest  evil,  the  punishment  of  thy  sin  is  at  hand.' 
But  that  the  latter  end  of  the  verse  can  not  be  referred  to 
sin,  but  unto  Cain,  not  only  the  grammar,  but  also  the  plain 
words  and  sense  of  the  place,  doth  convince.  For  that  which 
is  said  of  the  appetite,  must  have  the  same  sense,  which 
the  same  words  have  before,  of  the  appetite  of  Eve  towards 
her  husband  Adam,  that  in  respect  of  the  law  of  nature,  and 
her  infirmity,  she  should  desire  to  be  under  his  government, 
and  that  he  should  have  dominion  over  her.  So  Abel  the 
younger  brother  should  be  affected  toward  his  elder  brother 
Cain,  to  whom  by  the  law  of  nature  he  was  loving  and 
subject,  and  therefore  no  cause  why  Cain  should  envy  him 
as  he  did.  Otherwise  it  were  a  strange  meaning,  that  sin, 
which  is  an  insensible  thing,  should  have  an  appetite  or 
desire  toward  Cain,  who  rather  had  an  appetite  to  sin,  than 
sin  to  him.  But  you  are  so  greedy  of  the  latter  part,  that 
you  consider  not  the  former.  I  know  what  the  Jewish 
rabbins,  favourers  of  heathenish  free  will,  absurdly  do  ima- 
gine to  salve  the  matter ;  but  that  wliich  I  have  said  may 
satisfy  godly  Christians. 



Calv.  in  5. 


Bib.  an.  1579. 


Mai-tin.  If  Calvin  affirm  that  ano  evKa^eias  cannot  signify  propter 
reverentiam,  because  anb  is  not  so  used,  and  Beza  avoweth  the  same 
more  earnestly,  and  the  English  bible  translateth  accordingly,  (which  may 
be  confuted  by  infinite  examples  in  the  scripture  itself,  and  is  confuted 
by  Illyricus  the  Lutheran;)  is  it  not  a  sign  either  of  passing  ignorance, 
or  of  most  wilful  coiTuption,  to  maintain  the  blasphemy  that  hereupon 
they  conclude  ?    See  chap.  vii.  numb.  42,  43. 

Fulke.     If  Beza,   Calvm,  and  the  English  translations  be 
deceived  about  the  use  of  the  preposition  cltto,    it  proveth 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  127 

not  that  they  are  deceived  in  the  translation  of  the  word 
evXafSeia^;  which  is  the  matter  in  question.  They  have 
other  reasons  to  defend  it,  than  the  use  of  the  preposition, 
although  you  slander  Calvin  in  saying  he  affirmeth  that  dwo 
is  not  used  for  propter,  For  he  saith  no  more,  but  that  the 
preposition  is  ctTro  not  vrrep,  or  some  such  like,  that  may 
design  a  cause,  quce  causam  designet;  that  is,  that  certainly 
may  point  out  a  cause,  and  cannot  otherwise  be  taken. 
Likewise  Beza  saith,  Atqui  non  facile  mihi  persuaserim, 
proferri  posse  ullum  exemplmn  in  quo  diro  ita  usurpetur: 
'But  I  cannot  easily  persuade  myself,  that  any  example  may 
be  brought  forth,  in  which  diro  is  so  used,'  that  is,  for  propter, 
or  secundum,  for  wliich  hid,  Kara,  or  virep  were  more  proper 
and  usual.  Now,  if  Illyricus  have  helped  you  with  a  few . 
examples  where  diro  is  so  taken,  what  say  Beza  or  Calvin 
against  it,  but  that  it  doth  not  usually  and  certainly  sig- 
nify so  ?  Their  judgment  upon  the  place  remaineth  still 
grounded  upon  other  arguments,  although  that  reason  of 
the  acception  of  diro  be  not  so  strong,  as  if  diro  had  never 
been  so  taken.  But  as  for  the  blasphemy,  you  say,  they  con- 
clude upon  that  place,  [it]  will  redound  upon  your  own  neck; 
for  their  exposition  is  honourable  and  glorious  to  God  the 
Father,  and  Christ  his  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  by 
whom  that  epistle  was  indited,  to  the  confusion  of  your 
popish  blasphemies,  of  the  sacrifice  propitiatory  offered  in 
the  mass. 

Martin.     If  Beza  in  the   self-same  place   contend,    that   fiXa^eia  IVIartin, 

doth  not  signify  reverence  or  piety,  but  such  a  fear  as  hath  horror  and 

astonishment  of  mind  ;  and  in  another  place  saith  of  the  self-same  word 

clean  contrary ;  what  is  it  but  of  purpose  .to  uphold  the  said  blasphemy  ? 

See  chap.  vii.  numb.  39,  40. 

Fidke.  Beza  in  the  same  place  doth  bring  manv  Fulke, 
examples  to  prove,  that  the  Greek  word  evXaf^eia  doth 
signify  a  great  fear,  and  so  is  to  be  taken  Heb.  v.  [7.]  But 
it  is  an  impudent  lie  to  say,  he  doth  contend  that  it  never 
signifieth  reverence  or  piety :  and  therefore  that  he  saith 
it  signifieth  piety  in  another  place,  is  nothing  contrary  to 
that  he  spake  in  this  place ;  for  the  word  signifieth  both,  as 
no  man  that  will  profess  any  knowledge  in  the  Greek 
tongue  can  deny. 





Aclsii.  23. 

Martin.    If  he  translate  for  God's  foreknowledge^,  God's  providence; 

for  soul,  carcase;  for  hell,  grave^:  to  what  end  is  this,  but  for  certain 

,  „       heretical  conclusions  ?    And  if  upon  admonition  he  alter  his  translation 

ibid:27.'      '  for  shame,  and  yet  protesteth  that  he  understandeth  it  as  he  did  before; 

did  he  not  translate  before  wilfully  according  to  his  obstinate  opinion? 

See  chap.  vii. 

Annotat.  in 
No.  Test, 
post.  edit. 


Fulke.  Beza  doth  indeed  translate  irpoyvwaei  provi- 
dentia ;  but  he  expoundeth  himself  in  his  annotation :  id  est, 
ceterna  cognitione.  For  what  heretical  conclusion  he  should 
so  do,  you  do  not  express,  neither  can  I  imagine.  To 
your  other  quarrels,  of  soid  and  carcase,  hell  and  grave,  I 
have  said  enough  in  answer  to  your  preface.  Sects.  46 
and  47. 

Acts  ii.  27. 


Martin.  If  to  this  pui*pose  he  avouch  that  slteol  signifieth  nothing 
else  in  Hebrew  but  a  grave,  whereas  all  Hebricians  know  that  it  is  the 
most  proper  and  usual  word  in  the  scriptures  for  hell,  as  the  other  word 
keher  is  for  a  grave ;  who  would  think  he  would  so  endanger  his  esti- 
mation in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  but  that  an  heretical  purpose  against 
Christ's  decending  into  hell  blinded  him  ?     See  chap,  vii. 

Fulke.  Nay,  rather  all  learned  Hebricians  know,  that 
sheol  is  more  proper  for  the  grave,  than  for  hell;  and  that 
the  Hebrews  have  no  word  proper  for  hell,  as  we  take 
hell,  for  the  place  of  punishment  of  the  ungodly,  but  either 
they  use  figuratively  slieol,  or  more  certainly  topheth,  or 
gehinnom.  For  sheol  is  in  no  place  so  necessarily  to  be 
taken  for  hell,  but  that  it  may  also  be  taken  for  tlie  grave. 
That  keher  signifieth  the  grave,  it  is  no  proof  that  sheol  doth 
not  signify  the  same;  and  therefore  you  shew  yourself  to 
be  too  young  an  Hebrician,  to  carp  at  Beza's  estimation  in 
the  knowledge  of  the  tongue. 


Martin.  And  if  all  the  English  bibles  translate  accordingly,  to  wit, 
for  hell  grave,  wheresoever  the  sciipture  may  mean  any  lower  place 
that  is  not  the  hell  of  the  damned ;  and  where  it  must  needs  signify  that 

p  Trpoyvaxrei  rov  Qeov  e/cSoroi/.  Acts  ii.  23.  "  Praescientia  Dei  traditum." 
Vulgate.  "  Providentia  Dei  deditum."  Beza.  All  the  English  versions 
have  foreknowledge,  except  the  Rhemish,  which  has  prescience.'] 

P  The  versions  of  Wiclif,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  and  of  James,  all 
render  "'s  atov  hell;  the  only  ones  having  grave,  being  the  Genevan 
Versions  of  1557  and  1560. 

"Quoniam  non  derelinques  animam  meam  in  inferno."  Vulg. 
"Cadaver  meum  in  sepulcro."  Beza.    Acts  ii.  27.] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  129 

hell,  there  they  never  avoid  so  to  translate  it ;  is  it  not  an  evident  argu- 
ment, that  they  know  very  well  the  proper  signification,  but  of  purpose 
they  will  never  use  it  to  their  disadvantage  in  the  questions  of  limbus, 
purgatory,  Christ's  descending  into  hell  ?    chap.  vii. 

Fulke.     I  have  said  before,  there  is  no  place  in  the  Old  Fulke, 
Testament,    where   sheol    must   needs    signify   that    hell,  in     * 
which  are  the  damned,  but  the  place  may  be  reasonably  and 
truly  translated   the  grave :    although,   as    in   divers  places 
by  death   is   meant    eternal    death,    so   by    grave   is   meant 
hell,    or    danmation.       Concerning  the    questions   of   limbus, 
purgatory,  and  the  descending  of  Christ  into  hell,  they  are 
nothing  like :  for  the  last  is  an  article  of  our  faith,   which 
we  do  constantly  believe  in  the  true  understanding  thereof; 
but  the  other  are  fables  and  inventions  of  men,  which  have- 
no  ground,  in  the  scripture,  but  only  a  vain  surmise,  builded 
upon  a  wrong  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  scripture, 
as  in  the  pecuHar  places  shall  be  plainly  declared. 

Martin.     If  further  yet  in  this  kind  of  controversy,  Beza  would  be  Martin, 
bold  to  affiiin  (for  so  he  saith),  if  the  grammarians  would  give  him  leave, 
that  chebel  with  five  points  signifieth  funem,  no  less  than  chehel  with  six  Acts  a!  24. 
points ;   is  he  not  wonderfully  set  to  maintain  his  opinion,  that  will  /^H 
change  the  nature  of  words,  if  he  might,  for  his  purpose  ?  ^^1 

Fulke.     Wonderfully,  I  promise  you  ;  for  he  translateth  wouw  trans- 

late  solutis 

the  word  for   aU  this,  dolorihus,  and  sayeth.  Nihil  tamen  funibus  mor- 

'  e/  '  tis,  not,  solu- 

ausus  sum  mutare  ex  conjectura:   "Yet  I  durst  change  no- [j^^^^o^onbus 
thing  upon  conjecture."  Annotat.  in  Acts  ii.  24^.    You  say,  he  Fulke, 
would  change  the  nature  of  words,     Notliing  so ;  but  if  the  ^4. 
word  might   bear    that    signification,    he    thinketh    it  more 
agreeable  to  the  Hebrew  phrase,  which  the  evangelist  doth 
often  follow.     Is  not  this  a  great  riiatter  to  make  an  evident 
mark  of  corruption? 

Martin.  If  passives  must  be  turned  into  actives,  and  actives  into  Martin, 
passives,  participles  disagree  in  case  from  theu*  substantives,  or  rather  be 
plucked  and  separated  from  their  true  substantives,  solecisms  imagined, 
where  the  construction  is  most  agreeable,  errors  devised  to  creep  out  of 
the  margin,  and  such  like  ;  who  would  so  presume  in  the  text  of  holy 
scriptures,  to  have  all  gi'ammar,  and  words,  and  phrases,  and  construc- 
tions at  his  commandment,  but  Beza  and  his  like,  for  the  advantage  of 

[^  "  Quem  Deus  suscitavit  solutis  dolorihus  mortis."  Beza.    "  Quern 
Deus  suscitavit  solutis  dolorihus  infemi."     Acts  ii.  24.     Vulg.] 

r  1  ^ 

[fulke. J 




their  cause  ? 
this  chapter. 

See  chap.  v.  numb.  6,  and  the  numbers  next  following  in 




Acts  iii.  21. 

Pag.  43. 



Fulke.  But  if  all  these  be  proved  to  be  vain  cavils 
and  frivolous  quarrels,  as  in  the  chap.  v.  numb.  6.  and  in  the 
numbers  following  in  this  chapter  it  shall  be  plainly  declared, 
then  I  hope  aU  men  of  mean  capacity  and  indifferent  judg- 
ment will  confess,  that  ignorance  hath  deceived  you,  malice 
hath  bhnded  you,  hatred  of  the  truth  hath  overthrown  you, 
the  father  of  hes  and  slanders  hath  possessed  you. 

Martin.  For  example,  St  Peter  saith, "  Heaven  must  receive  Christ." 
He  translateth,  "Christ  must  be  containesi  in  heaven,"  which  Calvin 
himself  misliketh,  the  Geneva  English  bible  is  afraid  to  follow,  Illyricus 
the  Lutheran  reprehendeth :  and  yet  M.  Whitakers  taketh  the  advantage 
of  this  translation,  to  prove  that  Christ's  natural  body  is  so  contained  in 
heaven,  that  it  cannot  be  upon  the  altar.  For  he  knew  that  this  was  his 
master's  purpose  and  intent  in  so  translating.  This  it  is,  when  the  blind 
follow  the  blind,  yea,  rather,  when  they  see  and  will  be  blind :  for  certain 
it  is  (and  I  appeal  to  their  greatest  Grecians)  that  howsoever  it  be  taken 
for  good  in  their  divinity,  it  wiU  be  esteemed  most  false  in  their  Greek 
schools,  both  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge ;  and  howsoever  they  may  pre- 
sume to  translate  the  holy  scriptures  after  this  sort,  surely  no  man,  no 
not  themselves,  would  so  translate  Demosthenes,  for  saving  their  credit 
and  estimation  in  the  Greek  tongue.    See  chap.  xvii.  numb.  7,  8,  9. 

Fulke.  Beza  translateth  quem  oportet  ccelo  capi,  Acts 
iii.  21.  You  say,  "Heaven  must  receive  Christ:"  Beza 
saith,  "Christ  must  be  received  of  heaven."  CaU  you  this 
turning  of  actives  into  passives,  and  passives  into  actives  ?  Or 
will  you  deny  us  the  resolution  of  passives  into  actives,  or 
actives  into  passives?  What  difference  is  there  in  sense 
between  these  propositions?  Your  purse  containeth  money, 
and  money  is  contained  in  your  purse :  the  chm^ch  must 
receive  aU  Christians,  or  all  Christians  must  be  received  of 
the  church.     But  Calvin,  you  say,  misliketh  this  translation, 

Qi  Kai  anocTTeiKj]  tov  TrpoKfXfi-pi-criJ.fvov  vfuv  'irja-ovv  Xpia-rov,  ov  Sfi 
ovpavbv  fiev  Be^acrdai,  a^pi  ;(poi'a)J'  aTTOKaracTTacrews  Travraiv.  ActS  iu. 
20,  21. 

"  Et  miserit  eum  qui  praedicatus  est  vobis,  Jesum  Christum.  Quem 
oportet  quidem  coelum  recipere  usque  in  tempora  restitutionis  omni- 
um."   Vulg. 

"Et  miserit  eum  qui  ante  praedicatus  est  vobis,  Jesum  Christum. 
Quem  oportet  quidem  coelo  capi  usque  ad  tempora  restitutionis  om- 
nium."   Beza.] 


I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  131 

and  the  Geneva  bible  is  afraid  to  follow  it.  Yet  neither  of 
them  both  mishketh  this  sense,  nor  can ;  for  it  is  all  one  with 
that  which  you  translate,  "  whom  heaven  must  receive."  Cal- 
vin only  saith,  the  Greek  is  ambiguous,  whether  heaven 
must  receive  Christ,  or  Christ  must  receive  heaven.  But 
when  you  grant  that  heaven  must  receive  Christ,  you  can 
not  deny  for  shame  of  the  world,  but  Christ  must  be  re- 
ceived of  heaven :  wherefore  you  understand  neither  Calvin 
nor  Illyricus,  who  speak  of  the  other  sense,  "that  Christ 
must  receive  heaven."  And  Master  Whitaker,  not  of  Beza's 
translation,  but  of  the  text,  and  even  of  yom*  own  translation, 
may  prove,  that  Christ's  natural  body  is  contained  in  heaven. 
And  as  for  your  appeal  to  the  greatest  Grecians,  and  the 
Greek  schools  both  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  [it]  is  vain  and 
frivolous ;  for  the  least  grammarians  that  be  in  any  country 
schools  are  able  to  determine  this  question,  whether  these 
propositions  be  not  aU  one  in  sense  and  signification.  Ego 
anio  te,  and  Tu  amaris  a  me;  "I  love  thee,"  or  "thou  art 
loved  of  me."  But  it  is  strange  divinity,  that  Christ  should 
be  contained  in  heaven.  Verily,  how  strange  soever  it  seem- 
eth  to  Gregory  Martin,  it  was  not  unknown  to  Gregory 
Nazianzen,  as  good  a  Grecian  and  as  great  a  divine  as 
he  is.  For  in  Ms  second  sermon  irepl  v'lov,  not  far  from  the 
beginning,  he  writeth  thus  of  our  Saviour  Cln-ist :  ^el  yap 
avTov  paaiXeveiv  o-'x^pi  Tovoe,  koI  virep  ovpavov  ce'^O^vai 
ctXP'-  XP^^'^^  airoKaTa(XTaaew<s.  "For  he  must  reign  until 
then,  and  be  received  or  contained  of  heaven  until  the 
times  of  restitution."  Here  you  see  Nazianzen^  citing 
this  very  place  of  Saint  Peter,  Acts  iii.,  for  the  mean  verb 
of  active  signification,  doubteth  not  freely  to  use  the  passive 
verb  in  the  same  sense  that  Beza  translateth  the  place, 
against  which  you  declaim  so  tragically.  And  if  you  think 
it  be  such  an  heinous  offence,  to  render  passively  in  the 
same  sense  that  which  is  uttered  actively  in  the  text,  so 
that  no  man  for  his  credit  would  so  translate  Demosthenes, 
as  Beza  doth  Saint  Luke ;  I  pray  you,  what  regard  had 
you  of  your  credit  and  estimation  ?  when  Matt.  iv.  you  trans- 
late, out  of  Latin,  Qui  dcemonia  hahehant,  "such  as  were 
possest;"  and  Luke  ii.    Ut  profiterentur,   "to  be  enrolled." 

P  Greg.  Naz.  Oratio  xxxvi.  Opera,  edit.  Lutet.  Parisiis  1609,  p. 

9 2 




Belike    you   have    a  privilege   to    do  what    you  list,  when 
other  men  mav  not  do  that  which  is  lawful. 


Pag.  34,  35. 
D.  Sand. 
Rocke,  pag. 

See  Comm. 
Bud.  Figu- 
rata  con- 
structio,  or 


Martin.  But  yet  there  is  worse  stuff  behind :  to  wit,  the  famous 
place  Luke  xxii.,  where  Beza  translateth  thus,  Hoc  poculum  novum  tes- 
tamentum  per  meum  sanguinem,  qui  pro  vobis  funditur^ :  whereas  in  the 
Greek,  in  all  copies  without  exception,  he  confesseth  that  in  true  gram- 
matical construction  it  must  needs  be  said,  quod  pro  vobis  funditur  ;  and 
therefore  he  saith  it  is  either  a  plain  soloRcophanes  (and  according  to 
that  presumption  he  boldly  translateth),  or  a  corruption  crept  out  of  the 
margin  into  the  text.  And  as  for  the  word  solaecophanes,  we  understand 
liim  that  he  meaneth  a  plain  solecism  and  fault  in  grammar,  and  so 
doth  M.  Whitakers :  but  M.  Fulke  saith,  that  he  meaneth  no  such  thing, 
but  that  it  is  an  elegancy  and  figurative  speech,  used  of  most  eloquent 
authors ;  and  it  is  a  world  to  see,  and  a  Grecian  must  needs  smile  at  his 
devices,  striving  to  make  St  Luke's  speech  here,  as  he  construeth  the 
words,  an  elegancy  in  the  Greek  tongue.  He  sendeth  us  first  to  Budee's 
commentaries,  where  there  are  examples  of  solaecophanes :  and,  indeed, 
Budee  taketh  the  word  for  that  which  may  seem  a  solecism,  and  yet  is 
an  elegancy,  and  all  his  examples  are  of  most  fine  and  figurative  phrases, 
but,  alas !  how  unlike  to  that  in  St  Luke !  And  here  M.  Fulke  was  very 
foully  deceived,  thinking  that  Beza  and  Budee  took  the  word  in  one 
sense :  and  so  taking  his  mark  amiss,  as  it  were  a  counter  for  gold,  where 
he  found  soloecophanes  in  Budee,  there  he  thought  all  was  like  to  St 
Luke's  sentence,  and  that  which  Beza  meant  to  be  a  plain  solecism,  he 
maketh  it  like  to  Budee's  elegancies.  Much  like  to  those  good  searchers 
in  Oxford  (as  it  is  said,  masters  of  arts,)  who,  having  to  seek  for  papistical 
books  in  a  lawyer's  study,  and  seeing  there  books  with  red  letters,  cried 
out.  Mass  books.  Mass  books:  whereas  it  was  the  code  or  some  other 
book  of  the  civil  or  canon  law. 


Fulke.  This  must  needs  be  a  famous  place  for  the 
real  presence  of  Christ's  blood  in  the  sacrament,  that  never 
one  of  the  ancient  or  late  writers  observed,  until  within  these 
few  years.  But  let  us  see  what  fault  Beza  hath  com- 
mitted in  translation.  The  last  word  in  the  verse,  to  e/c^v- 
vo/jLevov,  he  hath  so  translated,  as  it  must  be  referred  to 
the  word  tw  aifxan,  signifying  blood,  with  which  in  case  it 
doth  not  agree.  That  is  true ;  but  that  he  confesseth  that 
all  Greek  copies  without  exception  have  it  as  it  is  com- 
monly  read,  it  is  false :  only   he  saith,    Omnes   tamen   ve- 

[}  Beza's  words  are,  "Hoc  poculum  est  novum  illud  testamentum 
per  sanguinem  meum,  qui  pro  vobis  cffunditur."  Edit.  1556  and 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  133 

tusti  nostri  codices  ita  scriptum  habebant.      "All  our  old 
Greek  copies  had  it  so  written."     He  speaketh  only  of  his 
own,  or  such  as  he  had,  and  not  of  all  without  exception;  for 
since  he  wrote  this  note,  there  came  to  his  hands  one  other 
ancient  copy,  both  of  Greek  and  Latin,  in  which  this  whole 
verse  of   the  second  deUvery  of   the  cup  is  clean  left  out. 
For    immediately  after   these    words,   tovto  ecrri  to  (rwfxd 
fxou,  7rX>)i/  iSov  t]  ^etjO  doth  follow ;  and  so  in  the  Latin,  Ve- 
runtamen  ecce  manus  qui  tradet  me,  &c.      Moreover,  Beza 
telleth  you,  that  Basil  in  his  Ethicks,  6p.  kol.  citing  tliis  whole 
text  of  St  Luke,  readeth,  t^  virep  vfxwv  eK')(vvoiJ.evM  in  the 
dative  case,  agreeing  with  t^  aifxan,  the  word  next  before. 
By  wliich  it  is  manifest,  that  in  S.  Basil's  time    the  read- 
ing was  otherwise  than  now  it   is  in  most  copies.     Again, 
where  you  say,  he  confesseth  that  in  true  grammatical  con- 
struction it  must  needs  be  said,   Qiiod  pro  vohis  funditur, 
his  words  are  not  so ;  but  that  those  words,  if  we  look  to 
the  construction,    cannot  be    referred    to    the  blood,  but  to 
the  cup,  which  in  effect  is  as  much  as  you  say ;  '  His  judg- 
ment indeed  is  of  these  words,  as  they  are  now  read,  that 
either  it  is   a  manifest    soloecophanes,    or   else  an    addition 
out    of   the    margin  into    the  text;    and  as  for  the    word 
soloecophanes,  you  understand  him  that  he  meaneth  a  plain 
solecism  and  fault  in  grammar,  and  so  doth  M.  Whitakers.' 
How  you  understand   him,   it  is   not  material,  but  how  he 
is  to  be  understood  indeed.     M.  Wliitakers,   whom  you  call 
to  witness,  doth  not  so  understand  him,  but  sheweth  that   if 
he    had    called    it    a    plam    solecism,    he    had    not  charged 
St  Luke  with  a  worse  fault  than  Jerome  chargeth  St  Paul. 
But  what  reason  is  there  that  you  or  any  man  should  under- 
stand  Beza,   by   soloecophanes,    to    mean  a  plain  solecism? 
Tliink  you  he  is  so  ignorant,  that  he  knoweth  not  the  dif- 
ference of  the  one  from  the   other?  or   so  neghgent  of  liis 
terms,  that  he  would  confoimd  those  whom  he  knoweth  so 
much  to  differ  ?      "  But  Master  Fulke  (say  you)  saith  that 
he   meaneth  no  such  thing,  but  that  it  is  an  elegancy  and 
figurative  speech,  used  of  most  eloquent  authors :  and  it  is  a 
world  to  see,  and  a  Grecian  must  needs  smile  at  his  devices, 
striving  to  make   St  Luke's  speech  here,   as  he  construeth 
the  words,  an  elegancy  in  the  Greek  tongue."      Thus  you 
write ;  but  if  I  give  not  all  Grecians  and  Latinists  just  oc- 

184  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE   ENGLISH  [cH. 

casion,  before  I  have  done  with  you,  to  laugh  at  your  proud 
ignorance,  and  to  spit  at  your  malicious  falsehood,  let  me 
never  have  credit,  I  say  not  of  a  Grecian  or  learned  man, 
which  I  desire  not,  but  not  so  much  as  of  a  reasonable  crea- 
ture. Ah,  sir!  and  doth  M.  Fulke  say,  that  this  speech  of 
St  Luke  is  an  elegancy  in  the  Greek  tongue  ?  I  pray  you, 
where  saith  he  so  ?  You  answer  me  quickly,  "  Against 
D.  Saunder's  Rock,  p.  308^."  I  tremble  to  hear  what  words 
you  have  there  to  charge  me  withal.  Indeed  in  that  page  I 
begin  to  speak  of  that  matter  against  Saunder,  who  chargeth 
Beza  as  you  do,  and  moreover  affirmeth  that  Beza  should  teach 
that  St  Luke  wrote  false  Greek,  because  he  saith,  that  here  is 
a  manifest  soloecophanes.  But  that  neither  you  shall  quar- 
rel, that  I  choose  some  piece  of  my  saying  for  my  pur- 
pose, nor  any  man  doubt  how  honestly  you  charge  me,  I  will 
here  repeat  whatsoever  I  have  written  touching  that  matter 
in  the  place  by  you  quoted : 

"  But  the  protestants  do  not  only  make  themselves  judges 
of  the  whole  books,  but  also  over  the  very  letter  (saith  he) 
of  Christ's  gospel,  finding  fault  with  the  construction  of  the 
evangehsts,  and  bring  the  text  itself  in  doubt.  Example 
hereof  he  bringeth  Beza  in  his  annotations  upon  Luke  xxii., 
of  the  words,  '  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood 
which  is  shed  for  you.'  In  wliich  text,  because  the  word 
blood  in  the  Greek  is  the  dative  case,  the  other  word  that 
followeth  is  the  nominative  case,  Beza  supposeth  that  St  Luke 
useth  a  figure  called  soloecophanes,  which  is  appearance  of 
incongruity ;  or  else  that  the  last  word,  '  wliich  is  shed  for 
you,'  might  by  error  of  writers,  being  first  set  in  the  margin 
out  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  be  removed  into  the  text.  Here- 
upon M.  Saunder,  out  of  all  order  and  measure,  raileth 
upon  Beza  and  all  protestants.  But  I  pray  you,  good  sir, 
shall  the  only  opinion  of  Beza,  and  that  but  a  doubtful 
opinion,  indict  all  the  protestants  in  the  world  of  such  liigh 
treason  against  the  word  of  God?  For  what  gaineth  Beza 
by  this  interpretation?  Forsooth,  the  Greek  text  is  con- 
trary to  his  sacramentary  heresy.     For  thus  he  should  trans- 

P  In  Fulke's  work,  entitled  "A  retentive  to  stay  good  Christians 
in  true  faith  and  religiop,  against  the  motives  of  Richard  Bristow. 
Also,  the  Discoverie  of  the  daungerous  Rocke  of  the  Popish  Church, 
Commended  by  Nicholas  Saunder,  D.  of  Divinitie.     London,  1580."] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  135 

late  it :  "  This  cup  is  the  new  testament  in  my  blood,  which 
cup  is  shed  for  you."     Not  the  cup  of  gold  or  silver  (saith 
he),  but  the  hquor  in  that  cup,  which  is  not  wine,  because 
wine  was  not  shed  for  us,  but  the  blood  of  Christ.     Why, 
then  the   sense  is  this:     This  blood   in  the   cup   which  is 
shed  for  you,   is  the  new  testament  in  my   blood.     What 
sense  in  the  world  can  these  words  have?     By  which  it  is 
manifest,  that  the  words    '  which  is   shed   for   you',  cannot 
be  referred  to  the  cup,  but  to  his  blood.     For  the  cup  was 
the  new  testament  in  his  blood,  which  was   shed    for  us ; 
which  sense  no  man  can  deny,  but  he  that  will  deny  the 
manifest  word  of  God.     Neither  doth  the  vulgar  Latin  trans- 
lation give    any  other   sense,   although  M.   Saunder  is  not 
ashamed  to  say  it  doth.     The   vulgar   Latin  text  is   this : 
Hie  est  calix  novum  testamentiim  in  sanguine  meo,  qui  pro 
vohis  fundetur.     What  grammarian,  in  construing,  would  re- 
fer qui  to  calix,  and  not  rather  to  sanguine  ?    Again,  Erasmus 
translateth  it  even   as  Beza :    Hoc  poculum   novum   testa- 
mentum  per   sanguinem   meum,  qui  pro   vohis  effunditur. 
Now,  touching  the  conjecture  of  Beza,  that  those  words  by 
error  of  the  scrivener  might  be  removed  from  the  margin 
into  the  text,  [it]  is  a  thing  that  sometime  hath  happened,  as 
most  learned  men  agree,  in  Matthew  xxvii.,  where  the  name 
of  Jeremy  is  placed  in  the  text  for  that  which  is  in  Zachary, 
and  yet  neither  of  the^  prophets  was  named  by  the  evangehst, 
as  in  most  ancient  records  it  is  testified.     The  lilce  hath 
been  in  the  first  of  Mark,  where  the  name  of  Esay  is  set  in 
some  Greek  copies,  and  followed  in  your  vulgar  translation, 
for  that  wliich  is  cited  out  of  Malachi ;  which  name  was  not 
set  down  by  the  evangehst,  but  added  by  some  imskilful 
writer,  and  is  reproved   by  other  Greek  copies.     But  this 
place,  you  say,  is  not  otherwise  found  in  any  old  copy,  as 
Beza  confesseth :  then  remaineth  the  second  opinion,  that  St 
Luke  in  this  place  useth  solmcophanes,  which  is  an  appear- 
ance of  incongruity,   and   yet  no  incongruity.     Wherein   I 
cannot  marvel  more  at  your  mahce,  M.  Saunder,  than  at  your 
ignorance,  which  put  no  diiFerence  between  soloscismus  and 
soloecophanes ;    but    even    as  spitefully   as  unlearnedly  you 
affirm   that   Beza  should   teach   that   St   Luke   wrote   false 
Greek,   whereas  soloecophanes  is  a  figure  used  of  the  most 
eloquent  writers  that  ever  took  pen  in  hand,  even  Cicero, 

136  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

Demosthenes,  Greek  and  Latin,  profane  and  divine,  and 
even  of  St  Luke  himself  in  other  places,  whereof  for  ex- 
amples I  refer  you  to  Bud^eus  upon  the  word  solcecophanes. 
The  appearance  of  incongruity  is,  that  it  seemeth,  that  to 
eK-)(^uv6fxevov,  which  is  the  nominative  case,  should  agree  with 
Tw  a'luaTi,  which  is  the  dative  case ;  whereas  indeed  to  is 
used  as  a  relative  for  o,  as  it  is  often,  and  the  verb  kaTi, 
which  wanteth,  is  understood,  as  it  is  commonly  in  the  Greek 
tongue ;  and  so  the  translation  must  be.  Hoc  poculum  no- 
vwn  testamentum  est  in  sanguine  meo,  qui  pro  vobis  effun- 
ditur,  or  effusus  est.  So  that  this  is  notliing  else  but  an  im- 
pudent and  unskilful  quarrelling  against  Beza,  whereas  you 
papists  defend  against  the  manifest  institution  of  the  cup, 
and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church,  the  communion  in 
one  kind  of  bread  only.      Cone.  Const.  Sess.  xiii.  21." 

Where  find  you  that  I  afiirm  St  Luke's  speech  here  to 
be  an  elegancy  in  the  Greek  tongue?  yea,  or  solcecophanes 
to  be  nothing  else  but  an  elegancy  and  figurative  speech? 
A  figure  indeed  I  say  that  it  is ;  but  are  all  figures  ele- 
gancies, or  all  figurative  speeches  elegancies  of  speech  ? 
Some  figiu-es,  I  trow,  serve  to  excuse  simihtudes  of  faults  in 
speech.  But  I  say  solcecophanes  is  used  of  the  most  eloquent 
writers.  Very  well ;  doth  it  thereof  follow  that  it  is  always 
an  elegancy  ?  Have  not  the  most  elegant  authors  used  hyper- 
batons,  perissologies,  and  other  figures  that  are  counted  faults 
of  speech,  and  not  elegancies  and  fine  speeches  ?  But  "  all  the 
examples  of  Budee,  you  say,  to  whose  commentaries  I  send 
you,  are  of  most  fine  and  figurative  phrases."  If  they  be 
such,  they  do  the  better  prove  that  for  which  I  called  him 
to  warrantize,  namely,  that  solcecophanes  is  not  a  solecism, 
or  false  Greek,  wherewith  Saunder  accuseth  Beza  to  charge 
St  Luke.  But  where  you  utter  your  foohsh  pity,  in  saying, 
Alas,  how  unhke  they  are  to  that  in  St  Luke !  I  think 
the  case  is  not  so  clear  as  you  make  it ;  for  I  suppose  those 
examples  that  he  bringeth  of  the  figure  of  the  whole  con- 
struction changed  after  a  long  hyperhaton,  or  parenthesis, 
may  well  be  taken  for  figiu-ative  speeches,  but  not  for  ele- 
gancies and  fine  figurative  phrases :  as  again,  those  popular 
sayings  which,  being  taken  out  of  the  common  people's  speech, 
Budseus  saith,  the  most  eloquent  orators  have  translated  into 
their  finest  writings.     Peradventure,  as  musicians  use  some- 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  137 

time  a  discord  to  set  forth  the  harmony  of  concord,  so  they 
by  hardly  avoiding  of  a  solecism  would  shew  the  grace  of 
congriiity  and  elegancy.  But  of  this  whole  matter  let  the 
judgment  be  with  them  that  are  learned  and  eloquent  in 
both  the  tono-ues.  It  is  sufficient  for  me  that  he  which  useth 
soloecophanes  in  Greek  committeth  not  a  solecism,  or  speaketh 
false  Greek,  as  Saunder  termeth  it.  But  where  you  say, 
that  "  Master  FuLke  was  foully  deceived  and  took  his  marks 
amiss,  as  it  were  a  coimter  for  gold,  to  tliink  that  Beza 
and  Budee  took  the  word  in  one  sense,"  you  say  your  plea- 
sure, but  you  shall  well  know,  that  Master  Fulke  is  not  so 
young  a  babe,  to  take  a  counter  for  gold,  as  you  are  a  bold  ' 
bayard,  to  pronounce  of  aU  men's  meanings  what  you  list. 
For  how  are  you  able  to  prove,  that  Beza  by  soloecophanes 
meaneth  a  plain  solecism  ?  Think  you  that  Beza  is  so  simple 
a  child  also,  to  term  copper  by  the  name  of  gold?  If  ha 
had  meant  a  solecism,  could  he  not  have  said  so  ?  But 
you  must  play  Procrustes'  part ;  for  neither  my  saying  nor 
Beza's  meaning  were  large  enough  for  you,  to  frame  your 
slanderous  cavil  against  the  truth,  and  therefore  with  a  loud 
lie  you  must  lengthen  my  saying,  and  with  proud  and  false 
presumption  you  must  stretch  out  his  meaning.  These  be 
your  arts,  tliis  is  your  eloquence,  these  are  the  sinews  of 
your  accusations.  Wliat  "  those  good  searchers  in  Oxford " 
were,  which,  being  masters  of  arts,  could  not  discern  between 
mass  books,  and  law  books,  for  my  part  I  never  heard ;  but 
I  think  it  to  be  a  matter  of  as  good  credit  as  that  you  report 
of  me  and  Beza. 

Martin.  This  was  lack  of  judgment  in  M.  Fulke  at  the  least,  and  RlAnriN, 
no  great  sign  of  skill  in  Greek  phrases ;  and  he  must  no  more  call  D. 
Saunders  unlearned  for  not  imderstanding  Beza's  meaning,  but  himself, 
who  indeed  understood  him  not.  For  if  Beza  meant  that  it  was  an 
elegancy  used  of  the  finest  authors,  and  such  as  Budee  doth  exemplify  of, 
why  doth  he  say,  "  that  he  seeth  not  why  Luke  should  use  soloecophanes," 
but  thinketh  rather,  it  is  a  corruption  crept  into  the  margin  ?  Tell  us, 
M.  Fulke,  we  beseech  you,  whether  is  the  better  and  honester  defence, 
to  say,  that  it  is  an  elegancy  and  fine  phrase  in  St  Luke,  or  to  say,  that 
it  is  a  fault  in  the  text,  it  came  out  of  the  margin,  the  gospel  is  here 
corrupted  ?  Think  you  Beza  such  a  fool,  that  he  Avould  rather  stand 
upon  this  latter,  if  he  might  have  used  the  former,  and  had  so  meant  by 
solcecophanes  ?  Yea,  what  needed  any  defence  at  all,  if  it  had  been  an 
usual  and  known  elegancy,  as  you  would  prove  it  ? 

138  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     I  had  rather  it   should   be   counted    want    of 

judgment  in  me,  so  it  were  by  a  man  of  judgment,  than  to 
be  taken  so  often  with  falsification  and  lack  of  truth.     For 
my  skill  in  Greek  phrases,  although  I  never  professed  any, 
yet  I  see  nothing  brought  by  you  to  change  my  opinion  of 
Saunder's  unlearned  slander,  in  railing  against  Beza,  for  say- 
ing that  St  Luke  should  write  false  Greek.     And  if  solmco- 
phanes  do  differ  as  much  from  solcecismus,  as  gold  doth  from 
copper,  as  you  seem  to  say,  when  you  write  that  I  take  a 
counter  for  gold,   I  might  tliink  myself  very  unlearned  in- 
deed, if  I  did  understand  Beza  speakmg  of  soloecophanes, 
as  though  he  spake  of  solcecismus.     But  you  demand  why 
Beza  saith,    that    he    seeth  not  why   St  Luke    should    use 
soloecophanes,  if  he  meant  that  it  was  an  elegancy  used  of 
the  finest  authors.      Still  you  thrust  in  your  he  in  every 
corner :  who  saith  he  meant  it  was  an  elegancy  ?  Beza  saith, 
he  seeth  no  cause  why   St  Luke  should  use  soloecophanes, 
that  is,   depart  from  the  usual  and    ordinary   construction ; 
and  therefore  passeth  to  another  conjecture.     But  you  speak 
me  fair   to  tell  you,   "  whether  is  the  better  and  honester 
defence,  to  say  that  it  is  an  elegancy  and  fine  phrase,   or 
to  say  it  is  a  fault  in  the  text,  it  came  out  of  the  margin, 
the  gospel  is  here  corrupted."   First,  I  answer  you,  that  Beza 
affirmeth  neither,  but  rather  translateth  as  BasU  did  read. 
Secondly,  I   say,  there  is  no  dishonesty   in  either  of  both 
conjectures ;  for  this  soloecophanes,  though  it  be  no  elegancy, 
yet  may  be  defended  from  solecism,  or  false  Greek.     And 
certain  it  is  that  some  words  have  crept  out  of  the  margin 
into  the  text,  as  the  name  of  Jeremy  in  all  copies  that  are 
extant.   Matt,  xxvii.,  and  of  Esay  in  many,  Mark  i.     And 
yet  we  say  not  the  gospel  is  corrupted ;  which  foul  phrase  it 
seemeth  you  have   great  pleasure  in,   notwithstanding   you 
yom\self  out  of  Lindanus   charge   all  the   Greek  copies   of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  to  be  corrupted  by  Marcion, 
the  mischievous  mouse  of  Pontus.     You  ask  further,  whether 
I  "  thinli  Beza  such  a  fool  to  stand  rather  upon  the  latter, 
if  he  might  have  used  the  former,    and   had  so  meant  by 
soloecophanes  ?  "     Nay,  rather,  think  you  Beza  such  a  fool, 
that   he  would  mean  a  plain  solecism,  and  call  it  only  an 
appearance  of  solecism?    What  he   rather  stood  upon,  his 
translation   doth  best  shew,  wliich  is  both  with  St  Basil's 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  139 

reading,  and  with  the  appearance  of  incongruity,  which  is 
none  in  deed.  "  Yea,  what  needed  any  defence  at  all,"  say 
you,  "if  it  had  been  an  usual  and  known  elegancy?"  So 
well  you  love  a  He  when  you  have  made  it,  that  you  can 
never  leave  it  until  you  have  worn  it  all  to  nought.  Now 
you  have  it,  not  only  an  elegancy,  but  an  usual  and  known 
elegancy.  Verily,  I  never  said  it  was  an  elegancy,  as  my 
words  are  plain  to  be  read  of  every  man,  and  much  less  that 
it  was  an  usual  and  known  elegancy.  Only  I  say  it  is  usual 
and  common  in  the  Greek  tongue,  that  the  prepositive  article 
is  used  for  the  relative ;  and  so  much  in  the  next  section  you 
yourself  do  grant  me :  and  as  for  defence  you  talk  of,  I  " 
see  none  needful,  except  it  be  for  that  tliis  phrase  here 
used  of  St  Luke  is  lawful,  though  it  be  not  so  common 
as  the  ordinary  construction. 

Martin.  For  you  say  further,  that  to  is  taken  for  o,  and  eVrt  is  Martuj, 
understood,  and  that  this  is  a  common  thing  in  the  best  Greek  authors ;  39. 
but  you  must  add,  that  the  said  relative  must  always  be  referred  to  the 
antecedent  of  the  same  case,  as  this  speech,  ro  noTTjpiov  to  eKxwofievov 
may  be  resolved  thus,  to  Trorqpiop  6  iKxvv6fiev6v  ia-n,  or  rather  o  €k- 
Xyverai :  but  that  ev  rw  aipLari  [xov,  to  eK^yvoyievov,  may  be  resolved,  o  i<- 
Xvvofievov  €(TTi,  you  shall  never  be  able  to  bring  one  example ;  and  you 
wilfully  abuse  vrhatsoever  knowledge  you  have  of  the  Greek  tongue  to 
deceive  the  ignorant,  or  else  you  have  no  skill  at  all,  that  speak  so 
barbarously  and  rustically  of  Greek  elegancies.  For  if  you  have  skill, 
you  know  in  your  conscience,  that  ev  t«  e'fia  olfiaTi.  to  vnep  vp.a)v  eKxv- 
vofievov  is  as  gi-eat  a  solecism  in  Greek,  and  no  more  elegancy,  than 
to  say  in  Latin,  In  meo  sanguine  fusus  pro  vobis,  which  in  the  school 
deserveth  whipping.  And  yet  you  ask  very  vehemently  concerning 
these  words.  Hie  calix  novum  testamentum  in  meo  sanguine  qui  pro  vobis 
fundetur,  what  mean  grammarian  would  refer  qui  to  calix,  and  not  to 
sanguis  ?  I  answer  that  a  mere  Latinist,  for  ignorance  of  the  Greek 
tongue,  would  refer  it  rather  as  you  say :  but  he  that  knoweth  the 
Greek,  as  you  seem  to  do,  though  he  be  a  very  young  gi-ammarian,  will 
easily  see  it  cannot  be  so  referred :  as  in  the  like,  Acts  xiv.,  Sacerdos  quoque  s  lepevs 
Jovis  qui  erat  ante  civitatem  eorum.  Here  qui  is  ambiguous,  but  in  the  '^°'i  ^"'^ 
Greek  we  see  that  qui  must  be  referred  to  Jovis,  and  cannot  be  referred 
to  Sacerdos. 

Fulke.     First,    I  take  that  you  grant  me,  that  it  is  a  Fulke,' 
common  thing   in  the    Greek  tongue,  that   the  article   pre-  ^" 
positive  is  taken  for  the  subjunctive,  and  the  verb  substan- 
tive may  be  understood  where  it  is  not  expressed ;   which  if 

140  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

you  would  not  have  granted,  might  have  been  extorted  from 
you  by  confession  of  all  Grecians  and  Greek  writers.  Se- 
condly, where  you  teach  me  a  general  rule,  to  add  to  the 
former  concession,  that  the  said  relative  must  always  be  re- 
ferred to  the  antecedent  of  the  same  case,  as  in  the  example 
you  bring,  to  TroTtjpiov  to  eK-)^vv6fxevov,  you  shall  pardon 
me  to  learn  of  you.  I  take  you  for  no  such  Aristarchus, 
that  you  have  power  to  make  new  rules  in  the  Greek  gram- 
mar, and  such  as  shall  control  not  only  Homer,  but  all 
good  authors  that  ever  did  write  in  that  language,  of  sole- 
cism  and  incongruity.  For  if  the  relative  must  always  be 
referred  to  the  antecedent  of  the  same  case,  to  agree  with 
it  in  case,  or  else  it  is  false  Greek,  I  will  abide  by  it, 
there  is  no  Greek  author  whose  works  are  extant,  but  he 
hath  committed  solecism.  The  examples  that  hereof  might 
be  brought  out  of  every  several  writer,  if  they  were  heaped 
together,  would  make  a  book  as  big  as  Ilias.  But  in  this 
so  clear  a  case  to  cite  any  examples,  I  see  not  to  what 
purpose  it  should  be,  unless  it  were  to  make  httle  children, 
that  learn  tvtttw  in  the  grammar  schools,  to  be  witnesses 
of  your  intolerable  arrogancy  and  incredible  ignorance. 
One  example  I  will  bring  you  out  of  St  Mark,  not  luilike 
this  of  St  Luke,  but  that  the  verb  eaTi  is  expressed  :  /cat 
(pepovcxiv  avTov  eiri  yoXyoOd  tottov,  o  ecxTi  ixeOepixrjvevo- 
nevov  KpavLov  tottos,  "  and  they  bring  him  to  the  place  Gol- 
gotha, which  is,  being  interpreted.  The  place  of  sculls."  This 
example  is  more  than  sufficient  for  so  plain  a  matter.  For 
although  it  be  an  elegancy  for  the  relative  to  agree  in  case 
with  the  antecedent  sometimes,  yet  to  make  a  perpetual  rule 
thereof  it  proceedeth  of  too  much  rashness,  want  of  know- 
ledge and  consideration.  But  I  "  shall  never  be  able  to  bring 
one  example  "  like  to  this  of  St  Luke,  where,  the  relative  not 
agreeing  in  case  with  the  antecedent,  the  participle  may  be 
resolved  by  the  verb  substantive  that  is  not  expressed ;  and 
I  "  wilfully  abuse  whatsoever  knowledge  I  have  of  the  Greek 
tongue,  to  deceive  the  ignorant,  or  else  I  have  no  skill  at 
all,  to  speak  so  barbarously  and  rustically  of  Greek  ele- 
gancies, and  I  know  in  my  conscience,  it  is  as  great  a 
solecism  in  Greek,  and  no  more  elegancy,  than  to  say  in 
Latin,  In  meo  sanguine  fusus  pro  vohis,  which  in  the  school 
deserveth   whipping :"   and  I  know  not  what  beside.     But 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  141 

touching  the  similitude  of  the  solecisms,  if  you  had  made 
your  example  ahke,  that  is,  put  in  the  relative  in  the  Latin, 
as  it  is  in  the  Greek,  In  meo  sanguine  qui  fiisus  pro  vohis, 
there  is  no  more  solecism  in  the  one  than  in  the  other. 
But  all  this  wliile  I  bring  no  example,  and  you  urge  an 
example,  yea,  so  extremely,  that  you  say  confidently,  I  shall 
never  be  able  to  bring  one :  but  what  if  I  bring  two  or 
three  ?  who  then  abuseth  his  knowledge  in  the  Greek  ? 
who  hath  no  skill  at  all  ?  who  deserveth  whipping  ? 
Have  you  so  read  all  authors,  and  bear  them  and  all  their 
phrases  so  well  m  mind,  that  you  dare  before  all  the  world 
avouch,  that  I  shall  never  be  able  to  bring  one  example? 
But  to  let  all  the  world  see  your  vanity,  I  will  begin  with 
Theognis,  who  in  the  863rd  of  his  Elegiac  Sentences  writeth 
thus : 

noXXoi?  a.xp^(Troi<Ti   6ebs   StSoZ  avhpaa-iv   ok^ov 
''EaGXov,   OS   oijff   avrd)   jSeXrepos   ov8ei>   iwv, 
Ovre  (f)ikots.  ' 

See  you  here  the  relative  os,  bemg  the  nominative  case,  not 
agreeing  with  his  antecedent,  ok^ov,  of  the  accusative  case, 
but  coming  before  the  verb  ecrri,  that  is  included  in  the 
participle  ewi/?  Wliat  can  you  here  say?  wiU  you  cavil  at 
the  subjunctive  article  ?  Then  read  a  few  verses  after,  and 
see  whether  tliis  poet  useth  not  as  indifferently  the  preposi- 
tive article  as  the  subjunctive  for  the  relative. 

nil'    oivov  Tov   ffJirjs   Kopv(^rjs  cmb   Tavyeroio 
'  AjJLTrekoi   TjveyKav,  ras   eCpvTevtr    6   yepav. 

And   within  two  verses, 

Tov  nivcov  cmb   p.ev   xakenas   (TKedacrets   pLfXeBcovas, 

speaking   of  the   same  wine.     . 
Also,  Theocritus,  in  24th  Idyll  : 

OvXopevois  6(f)i€(rcn,   ra   Koi   6eo\   i-}(6a'ipovTi. 

And  in  the  23rd   Idyll: 

Kal   ttotI   tov   6eov   Tjvde   rov  {impure. 

From  Theocritus  let  us  pass  to  Hesiodus,  out  of  whom 
it  were  over  tedious  to  cite  how  often  he  useth  the  article 
prepositive  for  the  relative,  and  not  agreeing  in  case  with 
the  antecedent :  but  an  example  or  two  shall  serve,  where 
the  verb   substantive  is  understood,  and  not  expressed,  nor 

142  A    DEl'ENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

any  other  verb  to  govern  the  relative,  yet  not  agreeing  in 
case  with  the  antecedent : 

Kpi^vqs   T    devaov   Koi  anoppvTov,    i]   t    ddokcoTos. 

Again,   in  "Epy.   'R/jl^P' 

Olcovovs   Kpivas   oi   eV  epy/xari  tovtco  apurroi. 

Here,  raethinks,  I  hear  you  grudge  against  poetry  and 
poetical  licence,  as  doubtless  you  Avould  quarrel  against  pro- 
fane authorities,  if  I  should  bring  you  any  like  examples 
out   of  prosaical   writers. 

We  must  see  therefore,  whether  we  are  not  able  to 
bring  examples  of  the  like  phrase  out  of  the  holy  scriptures. 
First,  that  soloecophanes  is  foimd  in  St  Luke,  I  will  refer 
you  to  the  first  cap,  of  his  gospel,  ver.  74,  and  cap.  vi.  ver.  4 ; 
likewise,  Acts  xxvii.  3,  and  Acts  xiii.  6.  But  for  the  like 
soloecophanes  to  tliis  in  question,  Luke  xxii.,  I  will  send 
you  first  to  St  Paul,  Col.  i.  25.  TrXrjpwaai  tov  Xoyov 
Tov  kdenv,  to  ixvaTYjpiov  to  airoKeKpvufxevov  utto  twv 
a'lwvwv  Kai  utto  toov  yevewv,  vvv\  oe  €(pavepu}6r]  toi^  ayioi^ 
avTou.  In  this  verse  to  nvcxTripiov  must  needs  be  the  ac- 
cusative case,  as  tov  Xoyov  is,  by  apposition :  then  is  to 
aTTOKeKpufxiuLevov  for  all  the  world  as  to  cK-^vvofxevoVy  the 
nominative  case,  signifying  Quod  ahsconditum  fuit,  which  the 
latter  part  of  the  verse,  vvvl  Se  ecpavepwOri,  doth  most  plainly 
declare :  for  what  else  should  be  the  nommative  case  to 
the  verb  ectavepwOr}  ?  And  even  so  your  vulgar  Latin  text 
hath  it  translated :  JSt  impleam  verbum  Dei,  mysterium 
quod  ahsconditum  fuit  a  sceculis  et  generationihus,  nunc 
autem  mwiifestatum  est  Sanctis  ejus^  But  because  this  is 
not  so  evident,  for  that  the  nominative  case  and  the  accu- 
sative of  the  neuter  gender  be  of  one  termination,  I  will 
bring  you  yet  more  plain  examples  out  of  the  Revelation 
of  St  John,  chap.  i.  4.  •^api's  vfxlv  koi  e'lpr^vri  otto  tov 
6  wi/,  Koi  o  ^v,  Kal  6  epy^ofievos.  "  Grace  to  you,  and  peace 
from  him  (or  from  God,  as  some  copies  have)  wliich  is,  and 
which  was,  and  which  is  to  come."  Would  not  your  grammar 
say  it  is  a  plain  solecism,  because  he  saitli  not,  tou  oi'to?, 
and  ToD  epj^ofxevov  ?  What  have  you  here  to  quarrel  ?  Is 
not  a-TTo  TOV  6  (vv  and  6  €p')^6fxevos  the  same  phrase  that 
is  in  Luke,   tm  ainaTi,  to  eK-^vvonevov'?     Well,  let  us  go 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  143 

a  little  further,  to  the  next  verse  of  the  same  chapter,  where 
we  read  thus :  Kai  ctTro  'Iriaov  X-picrrov,  o  /maprvs  o  Trtaros, 
o  Ti pwTOTOKo^  eK  Twv    veKpwv,   Kai  o  apywv  twv  fiaaiXecov 
T^9  7^9.     "  And  from  Jesus  Christ,  which  is  a  faithful  wit- 
ness, the  first-born  from  the  dead,  and  prince  over  the  kings 
of  the  earth."     The  more  usual  construction  would  require 
that  he  should  have  said,  airo  lijcrov  KpiaTov  tov  nxaprvpo^ 
Tov    TTiaTou,  TOV  TTpoTOTOKov  Ktti  TOV   apyovTo<i,   but   that 
he  useth  the   same  soloecophanes  which  St  Luke  doth,  chap, 
xxii.   (if  the  reading  be  not  altered),  where  the  article  pre- 
positive is  put  in  the  place  of  the  subjunctive,  and  agreeth 
not  in  case  with  the  antecedent,  as  often  it  doth,  but  being 
the  nominative  case,  cometh  before  the  verb  eart,  which  is 
not  expressed,  but  must  needs  be  understood ;   as  even  your 
vulgar  translator  doth   acknowledge,    rendering  it    in    both 
verses  thus :  ab  eo  qui  est,  et  qui  erat,  et  qui  venturus  est, 
and  a  Jesu  Christo  qui  est  testis  fidelis,   S^c.    These  exam- 
ples, I  doubt  not  but  they  are  sufiicient  to  satisfy  any  rea- 
sonable   man,    to    shew   that   I  have    not   invented    a    new 
construction  that  never  was  heard  of,  to  save  Beza's  credit, 
and  whereof  I  am  able  to  give  not  so  much  as  one  example. 
But  that  I  may   overthrow  M.  Martin's  vain  insultation 
with  a  whole  cloud  of  examples,  I  will  yet  add  one  or  two 
more.    In  the  same  Revelation,  chap.  viii.  9,  thus  we  read :  koI 
airedave  to  Tp'iTov  twv  KTianaToov   tcov   ev  ttj  OaXaaarj  ra 
e^oj'Ta  x^vp^cts,   "  and  there  died  the  third  of  all  creatures 
which  are  in  the  sea,  which  had  Hves."     Your  vulgar  Latin 
text  turneth  it  thus :   £t  mortua  est  tertia  pars  creaturce, 
eorum  quoe  habebant  animas  in  mari :   "And  there  died  the 
tliird  part  of  the  creatures,  of  those  things  which  had  life 
in  the  sea."     In  which  translation,  although  the  order  of  the 
words  which  St  John  useth  is  somewhat  inverted,  yet   the 
sense  remaineth  the  same;  and  ra  ep^oj/ra  is  translated,  quce 
habebant,  which  agreeth  not   with  twv  KTiafxaTwv  in   case, 
(as  every  chUd  that  can  decUne  a  Greek  noun  doth  know,) 
where  otherwise  the  most  common  construction  were  to  have 
said,  TWV  KTiafJiaTwv,   twv  e-^ovTwv.      Therefore  the  phrase 
a,nd  construction  is  the  same,  which  is  Luke  xxii..   Tip  al/uaTi, 
TO  eK-^vvonevov.     What  can  fine  M.  Gregorie,  which  carpeth 
at    my    skill,    that    speak   so   barbarously   and   rustically    of 
Greek  elegancies,  what  can  Master  Gregorie  Martin,  I  say, 


the  great  linguist  of  the  seminary  of  Rheims,  allege,  why 
these  phrases  are  not  alike  ?  or  rather,  changing  the  words, 
in  figure  the  very  same  ?  And  if  he  have  anything  to  cavil 
against  this  example,  as  I  see  not  what  he  can  have,  yet 
have  I  another  out  of  the  same  book,  chap.  iii.  12 :  kuI 
ypa\j/w  eir  avrov  to  opofxa  tov  Qeov  fxov,  kuI  to  ovoixa  tj/s" 
iroXews  tou  Qeov  fiov  t^9  /catv^s  lepovaaXrj/Xf  ri  KaTajBaivovaa 
€K  TOV  ovpavov  airo  tov  Qeov  fxov.  "And  I  will  write  upon 
him  the  name  of  my  God,  and  the  name  of  the  city  of  my 
God,  the  new  Jerusalem,  which  descendeth  out  of  heaven 
from  my  God."  The  vulgar  Latin  translation  differeth  not 
from  this,  which  saith  :  Et  scribam  super  eum  nomen  Dei 
met,  et  nomen  civitatis  Dei  mei,  novce  Jerusalem,  quce 
descendit  de  ccelo  a  Deo  meo.  Here  the  antecedent  is  of 
the  genitive  case,  the  relative  of  the  nominative,  which  cometh 
before  the  verb  eo-rt,  understood  in  the  participle  KaTaf3ai- 
vovaa,  as  in  Luke  xxii.  it  is  in  the  participle  eK-y^vvofxevov. 

By  these  examples,  in  seeking  whereof,  I  promise  you, 
I  spent  no  great  time,  you  may  learn  to  be  wiser  hereafter, 
and  not  to  condemn  all  men,  beside  yourself,  out  of  your 
reader's   chair   at  Eheims,    of  ignorance,   unskilfulness,  bar- 
barousness,  rusticity,  yea,  wilfulness  and  madness,  where  you 
yourself  deserve  a  much  sharper  censure  through  your  im- 
moderate insultation,  the  matter  thereof  being  both  more  false 
and  forged,   than  we   might  justly  have  borne,   if  we  had 
been    overtaken   with  a  little    grammatical    ignorance.     By 
these   examples  I  trust   you  see,   or   if  you   will  needs  be 
bhnd,  all  the  young  Grecians  in  England  may  see,  that  as 
in  the  Latin  translation   you   confess  the   relative   standeth 
more  likely   to  be   referred  to  the  word  sanguine  than  to 
the  word  calix,  so  in  the  Greek  there  is  no  help  to  remove 
it  from  the   next    manifest  and  necessary   antecedent  to   a 
word  further  off,  with  which  the  signification  of  the  participle 
cannot  agree.      For  who  would  say,  that  a  cup  is  shed  for 
us  ?     And  though   you  make  a  metonymy  of  the   cup   for 
that  which  is  in  the  cup,  what  is  that,  I  pray  you  ?     Not 
wine,  you  will  say,  I  am  sm'e,  but  the  blood  of  Christ.     If 
you  so  resolve  it,  then  foUoweth  that  vain   nugation  which 
I   have  noted   against  Saunder :    "  This   blood   in   the  cup, 
which   blood  is  shed  for  you,  is  the  new    testament  in  my 
blood."     Is  that  blood  in  the  cup  diverse  from  that  blood 


I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  145 

in  which  the  now  testament  is  confirmed  ?  If  it  be  the 
same,  how  often  was  it  shed  ?  If  it  were  shed  in  the  cup, 
how  holdeth  your  unbloody  sacrifice  ?  Or  how  can  you 
say  that  it  was  shed  in  the  cup,  where,  by  your  rule  of 
concomitants,  it  is  not  separated  from  the  body,  as  it  was 
in  his  passion  ?  K  it  were  not  separated,  as  certainly  his 
blood  was  not  separated  from  liis  body,  in  the  supper,  how 
can  that  which  was  in  the  cup,  be  liis  blood  that  was  shed 
for  us?  for  the  word  of  "shedding"  signifieth  separation. 
Wherefore  it  cannot  be  referred  to  that  in  the  cup,  but 
to  his  blood  wliicli  was  shed  on  the  cross  for  us ;  so  that 
there  is  a  manifest  enallage,  or  change  of  the  tense ;  the  • 
present  being  put  for  the  future,  as  it  is  manifest  by  the 
other  evangelists,  where  the  word  of  shedcUng  can  be  re- 
ferred to  notliing  else,  but  to  his  blood  shed  upon  the  cross. 
Wherefore  the  Greek  text  can  here  resolve  you  of  no  am- 
biguity, as  in  the  place  you  cite.  Acts  xiv.  Neither  was 
there  ever  any  ancient  writer  that  stumbled  upon  this  am- 
biguity; but  all  with  one  consent  refer  the  word  of  shedding 
to  his  blood,  and  not  to  the  cup  or  the  content  thereof, 
so  many  as  speak  of  it. 

Martin.  And  this  is  one  commodity  among  others,  that  we  reap  of  ixrARUN, 
the  Greek  text,  to  resolve  the  ambiguity  that  is  sometime  in  the  Latin  :  '^^• 
whereas  you  neither  admit  the  one  nor  the  other,  but  as  you  list ;  neither 
doth  the  Greek  satisfy  you,  be  it  never  so  plain  and  infallible,  but 
you  wiU  devise  that  it  is  corrupted,  that  there  is  a  solecism,  that  the 
same  solecism  is  an  elegancy,  and  thereupon  you  translate  your  own 
device,  and  not  the  word  of  God.  Which  whence  can  it  proceed,  but  of 
most  wUftil  corruption?     See  chap.  xvii.  num.  10,  11,  12. 

Fulke.  This  is  nothing  but  general  raihng,  and  im-  Fulke, 
pudent  slandering,  as  in  the  particular  sections  before  is 
proved.  For  we  neither  devise  that  the  text  is  corrupted, 
to  alter  any  thing  of  the  text,  no,  not  where  it  is  undoubtedly 
corrupted,  as  in  the  name  of  Jeremy,  Matt,  xxvii. :  neither 
devise  we  a  solecism,  when  we  admonish  that  there  is 
a  soloeco2)hanes\  which  of  no  papist  that  ever  I  heard  of 
was  before  observed :  neither  make  we  a  solecism  to  be 
an  elegancy,  when  we  say  against  them  that  confound  a 
solecism  with  soloecophanes,  that  solmcophanes  is  a  figure 
used  sometimes  of  most  eloquent  writers,  neither  is  it  straight- 

['  That  which  seems  to  be  a  solecism,  but  vet  is  not.] 
r  1  10 


146  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  .  [CH. 

way  a  vii'tue  or  elegancy  of  speech,  whatsoever  eloquent 
writers  sometimes  have  used  :  wherefore  we  translate  no- 
thing of  our  own  device,  but  we  translate  the  word  of  God 
without  any  wilful  corruption. 

Maktin,  Martin.     If  in  ambiguous  Hebrew  words  of  doubtful  signification, 

^''  where  the  Greek  giveth  one  certain  sense,  you  refuse  the  Greek,  and 

take  your  advantage  of  the  other  sense;  what  is  this  but  wilful  par- 

Psai.  cxix.      tiality  ?     So  you  do  in  Redime  eleernosynis  peccata  tua,  Dan.  iv. :   and, 

Oeton.  'Nun}.  ,   ^     .       ,        .        .^        .  .,       • 

Ps.  cxxxix.     IttcUnavi  cor  meum  ad  faciendas  justtjicationes  tuas  propter  retributionem  ; 

and,  Nimis  honorati  sunt  amici  tui,  Deus,  etc. :  and  yet  at  another  time 

you  follow  the  determination  of  the  Greek  for  another  advantage,  as 

Psalm  xcviii.  "Adore  his  footstool,  because  he  is  holy."    Whereas  in  the 

W'Slp  Hebrew  it  may  be  as  in  our  Latin,  "because  it  is  holy."    See  chap.  xiii. 

vj»^  num.  18;   chap.  ix.  num.  23,  24;   chap,  xviii.  num.  1,  2.      So  you  flee 

from  the  Hebrew  to  the  Greek,  and  from  this  to  that  again,  from  both 

Lib.  ii.  cont.  to  the  vulgar  Latin,  as  is  shewed  in  other  places  ;  and  as  St  Augustine 

Faust,  cap.22.  ^^\y  ^q  Faustus  the  Manichee,  "  You  are  the  rule  of  truth :  whatsoever 

is  for  you,  is  true ;  whatsoever  is  against  you,  is  not  true." 

FuLKE  Fulke.     If  Hebrew  words  be  ambiguous,  we  take  that 

41'  sense  which   agreeth  with  other  places  that  are   plain  and 

without  all  ambiguity ;  and  this  is  no  partiahty,  but  wisdom 
and  love  of  the  truth :  not  to  groimd  any  new  doctrine 
upon  such  places  only,  where  the  Hebrew  word  is  ambigu- 
ous, and  may  have  divers  significations ;  as  you  do  the 
redemption  of  sins  by  alms,  upon  that  place  of  Daniel  iv. ; 
where  you  confess  that  the  Hebrew  word  is  ambiguous, 
and  are  not  able  to  bring  any  one  plain  text  for  it,  where 
the  words  are  not  ambiguous.  But  we  ground  our  refusal 
upon  a  hundred  plain  texts,  that  ascribe  the  whole  glory 
of  our  ransom  and  redemption  from  sins  to  the  only  mercy 
of  God.  But  as  well  this  text  as  the  other  two,  that  you 
cite  in  the  chapters  by  you  quoted,  shall  be  throughly 
discussed,  to  see  if  you  can  have  any  advantage  at  our 
translators  of  the  same.  But  on  the  contrary  side  you 
say  that  at  another  time  we  foUow  the  determination  of 
the   Greek   for  another  advantage,   as  in  that  text.  Psalm 

P  Ps.  cxix.  112.  i.  e.  in  the  octonary,  or  division  of  eight  verses, 
which  commences  with  the  Hebrew  letter  3j  fiun.'] 

["  Vides  certe  quam  nescias,  vel  te  nescire  fingas,  quid  sit  evan- 
gelium,  nee  ex  doctrina  apostolica,  sed  ex  vestro  errore  nomines  evan- 
gelium.    Augustin.  Contra  Faustum,  Lib.  n.  2.  Opera.  Vol.  viii.  p.  316.3 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  147 

xcviii.  "  Adoro  his  footstool,  because  he  is  holy,"  whereas  [Psai.  xcix.] 
in  the  'Hebrew  it  may  be  as  in  your  Latin,  "  because  it  is 
holy."  I  answer,  that  we  follow  not  the  determination  of 
the  Greek,  as  moved  by  the  only  authority  thereof,  for  any 
advantage,  but  because  we  learn  our  interpretation  out  of 
the  very  psalm  itself.  For  whereas  the  prophet  in  the  5th 
verse  hath  said,  "  Exalt  ye  the  Lord  om*  God,  and  wor- 
ship at  the  footstool  of  his  feet,  for  he  is  holy  ;"  in  the  last 
verse  of  the  same  he  repeateth  again  the  like  exhortation : 
"  Exalt  ye  the  Lord  our  God,  and  worship  him  in  liis  holy 
hill;  for  the  Lord  our  God  is  holy."  In  this  verse  for  his 
'  footstool'  he  placeth  the  'holy  lull,'  which  expresseth  where 
his  footstool  was,  namely  the  holy  ark,  and  for  cadhosh  hu,  ';£i\'-\p 
'holy  is  he,'  now  he  sayeth,  cadosh  Jehova,  'holy  is  the  Lor.d  ^^^^ 
our  God,'  which  putteth  the  other  verse  out  of  ambiguity.  .»:^-;_-, 
Wherefore  if  we  take  testimony  of  the  Greek,  we  fly  not  .  "^ 
to  the  Greek  from  the  Hebrew,  but  shew  that  the  Hebrew '  t 
may  so  be  understood,  having  other  more  certain  arguments 
than  the  testimony  of  the  Greek.  Again,  it  is  utterly  false, 
that  you  say  we  fly  from  both  Hebrew  and  Greek  to  the 
Latin ;  for  we  never  fly  from  the  Hebrew,  but  acknowledge 
it  as  the  fountain  and  spring,  from  whence  we  must  re- 
ceive the  infallible  truth  of  God's  word  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, following  the  Latin  or  Greek  so  far  as  they  follow 
the  truth  of  the  Hebrew  text,  and  no  farther.  As  for  the 
saying  of  St  Augustine  to  Faustus  the  Manichee,  "  You 
are  the  rule  of  truth,"  [it]  doth  most  aptly  agree  to  you 
papists  and  to  your  pope :  for  you  wUl  not  afford  unto  the 
scriptures  themselves  any  authority  or  certainty  of  truth, 
but  upon  your  approbation  and  interpretation.  ^Vlierefore 
not  only  that  which  he  saith"  to  Faustus  the  Manichee 
agreeth  aptly  to  you,  '  Whatsoever  is  for  you  is  true,  what- 
soever is  against  you  is  not  true  :'  but  that  also  which  he 
reporteth  Tyconius  the  Donatist  said  of  his  sect,  Quod  vo- 
lumus  sanctum  est,  "Whatsoever  we  will  is  holy,"  you  your- 
selves take  upon  you.  For  no  doctrine  is  good  nor  holy, 
though  it  be  proved  never  so  plainly  out  of  the  holy  scrip- 
ture, except  it  be  allowed  by  you  for  catholic  and  holy. 

Martin.     What  shall  I  speak  of  the  Hebrew  particle  vau  ?  which  Martin, 
(Gen.  xiv.  18.)  must  in  no  case  be  translated  because,  lest  it  should 


148  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

|nb  Kini  prove  that  Melchisedec  offered  sacrifice  of  bread  and  wine,  as  all  the 
'  fathers  expound  it:  but  (Lukei.  42)  where  they  translate  the  equiva- 
lent Greek  i)article  Kal  ,  there  Beza  proveth  the  said  particle  to  signify 

Quia  bene-     because,  and  translateth  accordingly,  and  the  English  Bezites  likewise. 

benedietus     I  will  not  Urge  them,  why :  we  like  the  sense  well,  and  Theophylact 

tristui/'^"  so  expoundeth  it.  But  if  the  Greek  copulative  maybe  so  translated, 
why  not  the  Hebrew  copulative  much  inoi*e,  which  often  in  the  scripture 
is  used  in  that  sense  1    See  chap.  xvii.  num.  13, 14. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     That  the  Hebrew  particle  vau  is  sometimes  to 

be  taken  for  a  causal  conjunction,  and  signifieth  because, 
no  man  denieth :  but  that  it  must  be  taken  so  Gen.  xiv. 
because  koI  is  taken  so  Luke  i.  42,  what  reason  is  this? 
But  all  the  fathers  (say  you)  expound  Melchisedec's  bring- 
ing forth  of  bread  and  wine  to  be  a  sacrifice.  I  grant  that 
many  do,  but  not  all :  yet  do  not  they  ground  upon  the 
conjunction  causal ;  for  Cyprian,  Lib.  ii.  Epist.  3,  ad  Ccecilium, 
readeth  thus,  Fuit  autera  sacerdos,  "  and  he  was  a  priest." 
So  doth  Hierome,  Epist.  ad  Evagrium,  expounding  the  very 
Hebrew  text,  say,  Et  Melchisedech  rex  Salem  protulit  por- 
nem  et  vinum,  erat  autem  sacerdos  Dei  excelsi.  The  word 
protulit  also  hath  Ambrose,  de  mysteriis  initiand.  Augus- 
tine upon  the  title  of  the  33rd  Psalm,  Cyprian  in  the 
epistle  before  named;  and  the  vulgar  Latin  hath  profercfiis. 
Hierome,  Ep.  ad  Evagrium,  sheweth  that  the  best  learned 
of  the  Hebrews'  judgment  was,  that  Melchisedec  Victori 
Abraham  obviam  processerit,  et  in  refectionem  tarn  ipsius, 
quam  pugnatorum  ipsius^,  panes  vinumque  protulerit :  "  Mel- 
chisedec came  forth  to  meet  Abraham  the  conqueror,  and  for 
refection,  as  well  of  him  as  of  his  warriors,  brought  forth 
bread  and  wine."  And  after  many  interpretations  of  the 
Greek  writers  which  he  rehearseth,  in  the  end  he  will  de- 
termine nothing  of  his  own  judgment.  The  author  of  Scho- 
la^tica  Historia,  cap.  64,  agreeth  with  the  interpretation  of 
the  Hebrews.     '^At  vera  Melchisedech  rex  Salem  obtidit  ei 

P  "EvKoyrjfievTj  crii  iv  yvvai^\,  Koi  evKoyrjfievos  6  Kapnos  Trjs  Kot\ias 
a-ov.     Luke  i.  42. 

"And  blessed  is  the  fruit  of  thy  womb,"  Cranmer,  Tyndale,  Rheims, 
Authorised.    "  Because  the  fruit  of  thy  womb  is  blessed,"  Geneva. 

P  (yus.    Edit.  Martianay,  Vol.  ii.  p.  66.] 

P  Genesis  xiv.  18.  The  Vulgate  has,  "At  vero  Melchisedech  rex 
Salem,  proferens  panem  et  vinum."    Augustine  says,   Et  tantus  erat 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  149 

panem  et  viniim :  quod  quasi  exponens  Joseplms  ait :  Mi- 
nistravit  exercitui  xenia,  et  multam  abundantiam  rerum 
opportunarum  simul  exhibuit,  et  super  epulas  benedixit 
Deimi,  qui  Abrahce  subdiderat  inimicos.  Erat  enim  sacerdos 
Dei  altissimi.  "But  Melchisedec,  king  of  Salem,  offered  unto 
liim  bread  and  Avine;  which  Josephus  as  it  were  expounding 
of  it  saith :  '  He  ministered  to  his  army  the  duties  of  hos- 
pitality, and  gave  him  great  plenty  of  things  necessary,  and 
beside  the  feast,  or  at  the  feast,  he  blessed  God,  which  had 
subdued  unto  Abraham  his  enemies :  for  he  was  a  priest  of 
the  liighest  God'."  Therefore  not  all  the  fathers  so  judged 
of  Melchisedec's  bread  and  wine.  But  against  all  them 
that  referred  the  same  to  his  priesthood,  we  oppose  the 
apostle  to  the  Hebrews,  chap,  vii.,  who,  searching  of  pur- 
pose whatsoever  was  in  Melchisedec,  wherein  he  resem- 
bleth  Christ,  so  that  he  omitteth  not  the  interpretation  of 
his  name  nor  of  his  city,  maketh  no  mention  of  his  sacri- 
fice of  bread  and  wine ;  whereas  nothing  seemeth  to  have 
greater  resemblance  than  that,  which  deceived  many  of 
the  ancient  fathers,  but  yet  was  not  observed  of  the  Holy 

Martin.    But  I  would  ask  rather,  why  Kexapirco^ievrj'^  may  not  in  any  IMartin, 
case  be  translated,    "  full  of  grace ;"  whereas  i^XKotfievos^  is  translated, 
"  full  of  sores ;"  both  words  being  of  like  form  and  force.    See  chap.  Luke  xvi.  '20. 
xviii.  num.  4, 5. 

Fulke.     The  former   word,   being  a  participle,   is   best  Fulke, 
translated  by  a  participle  'freely  beloved:'  for  the  other,  if '*'^' 
we  had  a  participle  in  Enghsh,  to  say,  'sored  or  botched,' 

Melchisedec,  a  quo  benediceretur  Abraham.  Protulit  panem  et  vinum, 
et  benedLxit  Abraham,  et  dedit  ei  decimas  Abraham.  Videte  quid  pro- 
tulit. Augustin.  Enarratio  in  Psalmum  xxxiii.  cap.  5.  Opera,  Vol.  iv. 
p.  301. 

Et  Melehisedech  rex  Salem  protulit  panem  et  vinum.  Fuit  autem 
sacerdos  Dei  summi,  et  benedixit  Abraham.  Cypriani  Epist.  lxiii. 
Opera,  edit.  Baluzi,  Paris.  1726.  p.  105.] 

[■*  xa'/3f.  Kexapi-rcofiiVT].  Luke  i.  28,  "Ave,  gratia  plena,"  Vulg. 
"  Hail,  full  of  grace,"  Wiclif,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Rheims.  "  Hail,  thou 
that  art  freely  beloved,"  Geneva.  "  Hail,  thou  that  art  in  high  favour," 
Bishops'.    "  Hail,  thou  that  art  highly  favoured,"  Authorised  version.] 

P  OS  f^f^XtjTo  npbs  Tov  nvXcova  avroi  T^X/cw/xe'i/oy.  Luke  xvi.  20. 
"Qui  jacebat  ad  januam  ejus  ulceribus  plenus,"  Vulg.  "  Full  of 
sores,"  all  the  Versions.] 

150  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

we  would  use  it ;  but  for  lack  of  a  participle,  we  are  con- 
strained to  use  the  noun,  'full  of  sores.'  I  may  likewise 
ask  you,  whether  you  would  translate  Ke')(^pvawfxevo^  fuU  of 
gold,  or  gilded?  And  so  of  all  other  verbs  of  that  form, 
where  there  is  in  English  a  participle :  why  ought  not  like- 
wise K€')(^apiTwix€vo^  be  translated  by  the  participle? 

Martin,  Martin.    Again,  why  say  they  (Heb.  xiii.)  "Let  your  conversation 

,  •  be  without  covetousness,"  and  say  not,   "  Let  marriage  be  honourable 

/oos'  6  Tp6-  ^^  ^^^'  ^^^  the  bed  undefiled ;"  both  being  expressed  alike  by  the 
T"^:  "^'V"'  apostle,  and  by  way  of  exhortation,  as  the  rest  that  goeth  before  and 
o  yafio^  .    f^yQ^g^ij  2     See  cliap.  xv.  num.  15. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.    Although  the  sense  were  not  so  greatly  different, 

■*  yet  the  participle  ^e  following  in  the  latter  part  of  the  verse, 

7rdpvov9  ^€,  &c.,  "  but  fornicators  and  adulterers  God  wUl 
judge,"  sheweth  that  the  former  part  of  the  verse  is  an 
affirmation  rather  than  an  exhortation.  Again,  the  purpose 
of  the  apostle  is  plain,  to  dissuade  them  from  whoredom 
and  adultery;  and  not  only  to  exhort  married  men  to  use 
marriage  temperately,  but  for  avoiding  of  whoredom  and 
adultery,  which  God  will  punish,  to  shew  the  remedy  that 
God  hath  provided  for  man's  infirmity  to  be  honourable 
and  void  of  filthiness. 

Martin,  Martin.    Are  we  too  suspicious,  think  you  ?     How  can  "  fear "  be 

translated  "  that  which  he  feared ;"  "  repentance,"  "  them  that  repent 
»Beza,  or  amend  their  life;"  "tradition,"  the  doctrine  delivered;  "temples," 
sTYie^Ai^'  shrines ;  "  idols,''  devotions ;  "  every  human  creature,"  all  ordinances  of 
andiii.  man;   "foreknowledge,"  providence;   " soul,"  carcase ;  "hell,"  grave; 

"  altar,"  temple ;  "  table,"  altar ;  and  such  like  1 

p  d(pi\apyvpos  6  rporros.  Heb.  xiii.  5.  "  Sint  mores  sine  avaritia," 
Vulg.  "Let  your  conversation  be  without  covetousness,"  Tyndale, 
Cranmer,  Geneva,  Bishops'  Bible,  Authorised  version.  "Let  your 
manners  be  without  avarice,"  Rheims.] 

P  TijLtios  6  yaftos  iv  Traert,  Ka\  77  koItt]  dfiiavTos.  Heb.  xiii.  4.  "  Ho- 
norabile  connubium  in  omnibus,  et  thorns  immaculatus,"  Vulg. 
"  Let  wedlock  be  had  in  price  in  all  points,  and  let  the  chamber  be 
undefiled,"  Tyndale.  "  Wedlock  is  to  be  had  in  honour  among  all  men, 
and  the  bed  undefiled,"  Cranmer,  Geneva.  "  Marriage,  honourable  in 
all,  and  the  bed  undefiled,"  Rheims.  "  Marriage  is  honourable  in  all, 
and  the  bed  undefiled,"  Authorised.  "Wedlock  is  honourable  among 
all  men,  and  the  bed  undefiled,"  Bishops'  Bible.] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  151 

Fulke.  We  think  you  not  more  suspicious,  than  maU-  Fulke, 
cious,  i'From  his  fear,"  may  well  (for  explication  sake)  be  ^• 
translated,  "  from  that  wliich  he  feared^,"  Heb.  v.  7,  even  as 
hope  is  sometime  taken  for  that  which  we  hope  for,  as 
Col.  i.  5.  Tit.  ii.  13.  So  may  "repentance"  in  Beza  Acts  xxvi.* 
20,  signify  them  that  repent,  as  "cii'cumcision"  often  signifieth 
them  that  are  circumcised:  neither  is  there  any  change  of  the 
sense,  to  say  the  fruits  worthy  of  repentance,  or  the  fruits 
worthy  of  them  that  repent,  or  amend  their  life.  And  I 
pray  what  doth  "tradition,"  2  Thess.  ii.  and  iii.  signify,  but 
the  doctrine  dehvered^  ?  Doth  not  the  apostle  declare,  what 
liis  tradition  was,  when  he  delivereth  this  doctrine,  that  if  " 
any  man  will  not  work,  let  him  not  eat,  2  Thess.  iii.  10.? 
The  word  vaom,  as  it  is  used,  Acts  xix.  24,  signifieth  neither 
temples  nor  shrines®,  but  certain  idolatrous  coins,  on  which 
was  stamped  the  figure  of  Diana's  temple,  more  like  to  your 
popish  shrines  than  to  the  temple  of  God.     Where  "  idols" 

[  Kai  fla-aKovcrdfls  dno  rfjs  ciXa/Sei'ay.  Heb.  V.  7.  "  Exauditus  est 
pro  sua  reverentia,"  Vulg.  "Exauditus  esset  ex  inetu,"  Beza,  1566. 
"  And  was  herd  for  his  reverence,"  Wiclif.  "  Heard,  because  of  his 
godliness,"  Tyndale.  "  Was  heard,  because  of  his  reverence,"  Cran- 
mer,  Rhemish.  "And  was  heard  in  that  wliich  he  feared,"  Geneva, 
Tomson's  translation  of  Beza,  Edit.  Barker,   1583.] 

1^*  Tois  edveacp  airayyiWav  fieTavoelv.  Acts  xxvi.  20.  "Annuntia- 
bam  ut  poenitentiam  agerent,"  Vulgate.  "Annuntiavi  ut  resipisce- 
rent,"  Beza,  edit.  1566.  "That  they  should  repent,"  New  Test., 
Englished  by  W.  Tomson,  from  Beza's  version,  1583.] 

[*  Koi  KpareiTe  ras  7rapa86(reis.  2  Thess.  iL  15.  "  Et  tenete  traditio- 
nes,"  Vulgate.  "Et  retinete  traditam  doctrinam,"  Beza,  1582.  "Et 
tenete  traditam  doctrinam,"  Beza,  1556.  "Keep  the  instructions  which 
ye  have  been  taught,"  Tomson's  translation  of  Beza,  Geneva.  "  Holde 
ze  the  tradiciouns,"  Wiclif.  "  Keep  the  ordinances,"  Tyndale,  Cran- 
mer.     "  Hold  the  traditions,"  Rhemish,  Authorised. 

Ka\  firi  Kara  ttjv  iTapabo<nv  t)v  TrapeXa^e.  2  Thess.  iii.  6.  "Et 
non  secundum  traditionem,"  Vulgate.  "Et  non  ex  tradita  doctrina," 
Beza,  1566.  "And  not  after  the  techynge,"  Wiclif.  "And  not  after 
the  institution,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  *'  And  not  after  the  instruction," 
Geneva,  Tomson's  version.  "And  not  according  to  the  tradition," 
Rhemish.    "And  not  after  the  tradition,"  Authorised.] 

[^  TToiav  vaovs  dpyvpovs  'ApT€p,i8os.  Acts  xix.  24.  "Faciens  eedes  ar- 
genteas  Dianse,"  Vulg.  "  Qui  faciebat  templa  argentea  Dianae,"  Beza, 
1566.  "  Which  made  silver  shrines  for  Diana,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer, 
Geneva,  Authorised.] 

152  A  defencp:  of   the  English  [ch. 

are  translated  '  devotions',  I  knoAv  not,  except  you  mean 
Acts  xvii.  23,  where  the  word  is  aefiaafxaTa^ ,  which  your 
vulgar  Latin  translator,  2  Thess.  ii.,  calleth  quod  colitur, 
"  that  which  is  devoutly  Avorshipped,"  and  so  the  word 
signifieth  '  whatsoever  is  rehgiously  worshipped  or  adored,' 
and  not  "idols,"  as  you  say,  nor  simulacra,  "images,"  as  your 
translator  calleth  them,  Acts  xvii. ;  for  it  is  derived  of  cre/Bd^o), 
or  cr6/3d^oyuat,  which  signifieth  '  to  adore,'  '  to  worsliip,'  'to 
honour  devoutly  or  rehgiously^.'  "  Every  human  creature" 
signifieth  in  that  place,  1  Pet.  ii.,  every  magistrate,  of  what 
creation  or  ordination  soever  he  be ;  and  so  is  meant  by 
that  translation  (all  ordinances  of  men),  not  all  laws  of  men, 
wliich  yet  were  not  impious,  if  you  add  the  restraint,  "for 
the  Lord,"  for  whom  nothing  can  be  that  is  against  his  law. 
The  rest  of  your  quarrels  be  all  answered  before. 

Ma II 1  i n ,  Martin.    What  caused  these  strange  speeches  in  theu-  English  bibles? 

.    "  Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  soul  in  the  grave."    "  Thou  hast  delivered 

1  sal.  Ixxxvi.  >ji 

n.  my  soul  from  the  lowest  grave.      "A  covetous  man  is  a  worshipper  of 

images."  "  By  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  eldership."  "  HaU,  freely 
beloved."  "  Sui  lieth  at  the  door,  and  thou  shalt  rule  over  liim." 
"Break  off  thy  sins  with  righteousness,"  for  "redeem  with  alms." 
"  Jealousy  is  cruel  as  the  grave,"  for  "  as  hell."  Cant.  viii.  Bib.  anno 
1579.     "  The  griefs  of  the  grave  caught  me."  Psalm  cxvi.    And,  "  God 

Taai.  xiix.  will  redeem  my  soul  from  the  power  of  the  grave."  "  O  grave,  I  will 
be  thy  destruction."  Os.  18,  and  such  like.  What  made  Calvin  so 
translate  into  Latin,  that  if  you  turn  it  into  English,  the  sense  is,  that 

Titus  iii.  God  'poured  water  upon  us  abundantly,'  meaning  the  Holy  Ghost  ?  what 
else,  but  because  he  would  take  away  the  necessity  of  material  water  in 
baptism,  as  in  his  commentary  and  Beza's  it  is  evident  ? 

FuMvK,  Fulke.    These  speeches  are  not  strange  in  God's  church, 

howsoever  they  sound  in  your  ears.      So  many  of  them  as 

p  ava6e<opaiv  to  cre^aa-fiaTa  vfj-cov.  Acts  xvii.  23.  "  Videns  simu- 
lacra vestra,"  Vulgate.  "  Contemplans  sacra  vestra,"  Beza.  "  For 
as  I  passed  by  and  beheld  your  devotions,"  Geneva  1560,  Tomson's 
translation  of  Beza,  1583,  though  this  appeared  a  year  later  than 
Martin's  book :  it  may,  however,  be  from  the  first  edition  of  the  trans- 
lation, printed  in  1576.] 

[  'YnorayriTe  ovv  naaj]  avdpanrivTj  KTicrei.  1  Pet.  ii.  18.  "  Subjecti 
igitur  estote  omni  humanse  creaturse,"  Vulgate.  "  Subjecti  estote 
cuivis  humanae  ordinationi,"  Beza,  1566.  "  Submit  yourselves  unto  all 
manner  ordinance  of  man,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva,  Authorised. 
"Be  subject,  therefore,  to  every  human  creature,"  Rhemish.] 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  153 

translate  for  sheol  the  "  grave,"  have  their  answers,  sect.  32, 
and  chap,  vii.,  which  is  appointed  for  that  question :  "  The 
covetous  man  a  worshipper  of  images,"  sect.  5  of  this  chap, 
and  chap.  iii.  numb.  12.  The  "laying  on  of  hands  of  the 
eldership"  is  warranted  by  the  signification  of  the  Greek 
word  irpea^vTepiov,  which  signifieth  a  company  of  elders, 
as  it  is  translated  by  your  own  vulgar  Latin  interpreter, 
Luke  xxii.  QQ.  Seniores  jjlebis  :  "  The  elders  of  the  people ;" 
and  Acts  xxii.  5,  he  calleth  irav  to  irpea-ftuTepLov,  Omnes 
majores  natu.  And  for  a  consistory  of  elders  is  the  word 
preshyterium  used  in  Latin  by  Cyprian,  Lib.  in.  Epist.  11, 
and  Lib.  ii.  Epist.  8,  10.  Of  "  hail,  freely  beloved,"  we  spake 
lately,  sect.  43. ;  of  the  text  Gen.  iv.  7,  "  sin  Beth  at  the 
door,"  &c.  sect.  28,  and  chap.  x.  sect.  9 ;  of  Dan.  iv.  "  break," 
for  "redeem  thy  sins,"   sect.   41. 

If  Calvin,  Tit.  iii.,  did  wrongly  interpret  that  which  is 
spoken  of  water,  to  be  meant  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  what  is 
that  to  our  translation  ?  But  certain  it  is,  that  Calvin  never 
meant  to  take  away  the  necessity  of  material  water  from 
the  sacrament  of  baptism,  although  he  taught  that  the  want 
of  the  external  sacrament,  where  it  caiuiot  be  had,  doth 
not  deprive  God's  elect  from  eternal  salvation :  neither  hath 
Beza  any  other  meaning  in  his  annotation. 

Martin.     I  had  meant  to  have    but    briefly  skimmed    over  these  IMahtiv, 
things,  but  multitude  of  matter  maketh  me  too  long,  as  it  chanceth  to  ^^' 
a  man  that  wadeth  through  miry  and  foul  places  ;  and  yet  the  greatest 
demonstration  that  they  are  wilful  corrupters,  is  behind,  which  only  I 
vsdll  add,  and  for  the  rest  refer  the  reader  to  the  whole  book. 

Fulke.  It  is  a  small  sign,  that  multitude  of  matter  is  Fulke, 
cause  of  your  length,  when  you  repeat  one  matter  in  so  ^'• 
many  sections :  your  similitude  of  a  man  wading  in  foul  and 
mu'y  places  doth  well  agree  unto  you ;  for  you  have  been 
all  this  wliile  wading  in  the  puddle  of  your  slanders,  mis- 
prisions, and  false  accusations,  in  which  you  have  so  berayed 
yourself,  as  you  shall  not  easily  purge  yourself  from  the 
mire  of  them.  But  because  you  say  the  greatest  demon- 
stration that  we  are  wilful  corrupters,  is  behind,  though  it 
be  tedious  for  us  to  rake  in  such  a  gogmire^  of  your  forge- 
ries and   false  accusations,   yet  we   will   take  courage,   and 

[•^  Quagmire.] 




consider  what  main  demonstration  you   can  make,  to  prove 
us  in  our  English  translations  to  be  wilful  corrupters. 


Tom.  2.  fol. 
4(»5.  edit. 
Wittel).  anno 

The  express 
testimonies  of 
Beza,  (whom 
the  English 
follow  here- 
in,) that  he 
doth  wilfully 
and  of  pur- 
pose translate 
against  such 
and  such 




Martin.  Doubt  you  whether  they  translate  of  purpose  and  par- 
tiality, in  favour  of  their  opinions  ?  you  shall  hear  themselves  say  so, 
and  protest  it.  If  I  dealt  with  Lutherans,  this  one  testimony  of  Luther 
were  sufficient,  who,  being  asked  why  he  added  "only"  into  the  text, 
Rom.  iii.,  answered  that  he  did  it  to  explicate  the  apostle's  sense  more 
plainly,  that  is,  to  make  the  apostle  say  more  plainly,  that  faith  only 
justified.  And  his  disciple  Illyricus  disputeth  the  matter,  that  the 
apostle  saying,  "  by  faith  vnthout  works,"  saith  in  deed,  "  only  faith." 
But  because  I  deal  rather  with  our  English  Calvinists,  and  Beza  is  their 
chief  translator,  and  a  captain  among  them,  whom  they  profess  to  follow 
in  the  title  of  the  New  Testament,  anno  1680,  and  by  the  very  name  of 
their  Geneva  bibles,  let  us  see  what  he  saith. 

Fulke.  I  think  there  is  no  man  doubteth  but  they  trans- 
lated the  scripture  with  purpose  to  maintain  their  opinions ;  but 
whether  they  have  wittingly  and  wilfully  translated  falsely, 
to  maintain  any  errors  or  heretical  opinions,  that  is  the  matter 
in  question,  and  which  hath  need  of  your  greatest  demonstra- 
tion to  make  it  apparent.  That  Luther  might  rightly  inter- 
pret the  place,  Rom.  iii.,  of  only  faith  justifying,  by  the 
excluding  of  works,  I  have  before  acknowledged,  and  Illyricus 
doth  rightly  defend  it.  But  that  he  did  put  in  the  word 
"  only"  in  his  translation,  which  is  not  in  the  original,  I  will 
not  take  upon  me  to  excuse,  seeing  the  truth  of  that  doc- 
trine is  manifest  without  that  addition;  and  Luther  himself, 
in  his  later  editions,  hath  reformed  it.  Again,  what  fault 
soever  other  men  have  committed  in  their  translation,  we  are 
unjustly  charged  therewith,  except  we  follow  the  same  in  ours. 
That  we  profess  to  foUow  Beza  by  the  very  name  of  our 
Geneva  bibles,  it  is  a  very  ridiculous  argument :  for  our  Bibles 
are  so  commonly  called,  because  they  were  translated  and  first 
printed  at  Geneva,  not  by  Beza,  (who  at  that  time  had  scarce 
finished  his  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  and  never  dealt 
with  translating  of  the  old,  so  far  as  we  know,)  but  by  certain 
godly  and  learned  Enghshmen,  which  hved  there  in  queen 
Mary's  time,  to  enjoy  the  liberty  of  a  good  conscience,  which 
they  could  not  have  in  their  own  country. 

Martin.  First,  concerning  iKTavodre,  which  the  vulgar  Latin  and 
Erasmus  translate,  Agile  pcemtentiam,  or  "  Do  penance."  "  This  interpre- 

I»]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  155 

tatkm,"  saith  he,  "I  refuse  for  many  causes,  but  for  this  especially, 
that  many  ignorant  persons  have  taken  hereby  an  occasion  of  the  false 
opinions  of  satisfaction,  wherewith  the  church  is  troubled  at  this  day." 
Lo !  of  purpose  against  satisfaction  he  will  not  translate  the  Greek 
word  as  it  ought  to  be,  and  as  it  is  proved  to  signify,  both  in  this  book 
and  in  the  annotations  upon  the  New  Testament.  A  little  after  speak- 
ing of  the  same  word,  he  saith,  "  Why  I  have  changed  the  name  poeiii-  Matt.  ui.  8. 
tentia,  I  have  told  a  little  before ;"  protesting  that  he  wUl  never  use 
those  words,  but  resipiscere,  and  resipiscentia,  that  is,  amendment  of  Loco  supra 
life ;  because  of  their  heresy,  that  repentance  is  nothing  else  but  a  mere 
amendment  of  former  life,  without  recompence  or  satisfaction  or  penance 
for  the  sins  before  committed.     See  chap.  xiii. 

Fulke.  Of  piu'pose  against  the  heresy  of  satisfaction,  Fulke, 
Beza  will  not  translate  the  Greek  word,  as  the  vulgar  Latin  ^^• 
translator  doth,  but  yet  as  the  Greek  word  ought  to  be  trans- 
lated. Erasmus,  finding  the  vulgar  Latin  insufficient,  hath 
added  vitoe  prions,  that  is,  "repent  ye  of  your  former  life." 
Neither  doth  Beza  find  fault  with  the  English  word  "repent," 
but  with  the  Latin  agite  pcenitentiam,  when  you  translate  it, 
"do  penance,"  meaning  thereby  pain  or  satisfaction  for  sins 
passed,  to  be  a  necessary  part  of  true  repentance,  which  is 
not  contained  in  the  Greek  word  /uerai/oeti/',  which  signifieth 
changing  of  the  mind;  that  is,  not  only  a  sorrow  for  the  sin 
past,  but  also  a  purpose  of  amendment,  which  is  best  expressed 
by  the  Latin  word  resipiscere,  which  is  always  taken  in  the 
good  part,  as  fxcTavoelv  is  in  the  scripture,  whereas  the  Latin 
words  poenitere  and  poenitentia  are  used  in  Latin  of  sorrow 
or  repentance  that  is  too  late :  as  poenitere  and  poenitentia 
may  be  said  of  Judas'  grief  of  mind,  which  caused  liim  to 
hang  himself,  but  not  fxeravoelv,  or  fierdvoia,  or  resipiscere 
and  resipiscentia:  and  therefore  the  Holy  Ghost,  speaking  of 
his  sorrow,  useth  another  word,  mcTafxeXeiv,  and  /ueTameXeia. 
And  this  is  the  cause  why  Beza  refused  the  word  poenitentia, 

[^  Ferte  igitur  fructum  dignum  resipiscentia.  Matt.  iii.  8.,  Beza? 
Vers.  1556.  Ceterum  iieravoflv  quum  est  verbum  absolutum,  proprie 
significat  post  factum  sapere,  et  de  errore  admisso  ita  dolere  ut  cor- 
rigas:  quod  (ut  opinor)  Latinis  proprie  significat  resipiscere.  Bezte, 
Annot.  in  v.  2. 

TertuUian's  definition  of  fifravoia  is  this :  Nam  et  in  Graeco  sono  poe- 
nitentiae  nomen,  non  ex  delicti  confessione,  sed  ex  animi  derautatioiie 
compositum  est.  Adversus  Marcionem,  lib.  ii.  Opera,  p.  472.  Edit. 
Rigaltii,  1641.] 

156  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLLSH  [CH. 

having  a  Latin  word  that  more  properly  doth  express  the 
Greek  word;  as  we  might  lawfully  do  in  Enghsh,  if  we  had 
another  English  word  proper  to  that  repentance  which  is 
always  joined  with  faith  and  purpose  of  amendment,  for  want 
whereof  we  are  constrained  to  use  the  words  repent  and 
repentance,  which  may  be  taken  in  good  part,  or  in  evil :  for 
we  say,  repentance  too  late,  and  Judas  repented  too  late ; 
but  there  is  no  fxerdvoia  that  can  be  called  too  late.  But 
where  you  say,  that  resipiscere  and  resipiscentia  is  nothing 
but  amendment  of  life,  and  that  repentance,  in  our  heresy,  is 
nothing  else  but  a  mere  amendment  of  former  life,  you  speak 
untruly  :  for  those  words  do  signify  not  only  amendment  of 
life,  but  also  sorrow  for  the  sins  past,  although  without  re- 
compense or  satisfaction,  wliich  you  call  penance  for  the  sins 
before  committed;  for  we  know  no  recompence  or  satisfaction 
made  to  God  for  our  sins,  but  the  death  of  Christ,  who  "  is  the 
propitiation  for  our  sins."  1  John  ii.  Neither  hath  your  blas- 
phemous satisfaction  any  ground  in  the  Greek  word  fxeravoeiv, 
but  only  a  foolish  colour  by  the  Latin  translation,  agite  pceni- 
tentiam,  wliich  it  is  like  your  Latin  interpreter  did  never 
dream  of,  and  therefore  he  useth  the  word  resipiscere,  2  Tim.  ii. 
Of  them  to  whom  God  should  give  /ueravoiav,  "repentance  to 
the  acknowledging  of  the  truth,"  et  resipiscant,  and  so  they 
may  repent,  or,  as  you  translate  it,  "  recover  themselves  from 
the  snare  of  the  devil."  Seeing,  therefore,  repentance  is  the 
gift  of  God,  it  is  no  recompence  or  satisfaction  made  by  us  to 
God,  to  answer  his  justice  ;  but  an  earnest  and  true  grief  of 
mind  for  our  transgression  of  God's  law,  and  offending  against 
his  majesty,  with  a  certain  purpose  and  determination  of 
amendment,  so  near  as  God  shall  give  us  grace.  Hitherto 
therefore  we  have  no  demonstration  of  any  wilful  corruption, 
but  a  declaration  of  the  cause  that  moved  Beza  to  use  a  more 
exact  translation,  and  such  as  cometh  nearer  to  the  original 
word,  than  that  which  the  vulgar  translation  hath  used,  upon 
which  occasion  of  a  great  blasphemy  hath  been  taken,  and  is 
yet  maintained. 

Martin,  Martin.    Again,  concerning  the  word  "justifications,"  which  in  the 

scripture  very  often  signify  the  commandments,  he  saith  thus:    "The 

mKcuM-        Greek  interpreters  of  the  bible  (meaning  the  Septuaginta)  applieth  this 

Luke  i.  6.       word  to  signify  the  whole  law  of  God,  and  therefore  commonly  it  is 

wont  to  be  translated  word  for  word,  Justificationes :  which  interpreta- 

1.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE,  157 

tion  therefore  only  I  rejected,  that  I  might  take  away  this  occasion  also 
of  cavilling  against  justification  by  faith  ;"  and  so  for  "  justificaHones  " 
he  putteth  "constituta,"  TuUy's  word,  forsooth,  as  he  saith.  Can  you 
have  a  more  plain  testimony  of  his  heretical  purpose  ? 

Fulke.  Concerning  the  Greek  word  liKamnaui,  wliieli  Fulke, 
Beza  translateth  constitutionihus,  "constitutions;"  and  you 
confess  that  in  scripture  it  doth  very  often  signify  the  com- 
mandments ;  he  saith  first,  that  as  the  whole  law  of  God  is 
divided  into  three  parts,  moral,  ceremonial,  and  juchcial,  so 
the  Hebrews  have  tlu-ee  several  words  to  express  the  several 
precepts  of  those  laws.  For  the  Hebrew  word  which  signifieth 
the  ceremonial  precepts,  the  Greeks  use  to  translate  SiKaiw- 
fxaTu.  So  the  sense  is,  that  Zachary  and  Ehzabeth  were  just, 
Avalking  in  all  the  moral  commandments,  and  observing  the 
holy  rites  and  ceremonies,  as  much  as  concerned  them  :  but 
the  tliird  word,  which  signifieth  "  judgments,"  St  Luke  doth 
not  add,  because  the  exercise  of  judicial  cases  did  not  belong 
unto  them,  being  private  persons.  After  tliis  he  saith,  that 
the  Greek  interpreters  of  the  Bible  transferred  tliis  word  unto 
the  whole  law  of  God,  and  especially  to  the  holy  ceremonies  : 
so,  verily,  exceedingly  commending  the  law,  that  it  is  a  certain 
rule  of  all  justice  ;  and  therefore  men  are  wont  commonly,  in 
respect  of  the  word,  to  turn  it  "justifications."  And  this  word 
in  this  place,  Beza  indeed  confesseth  that  he  refused  to  use, 
for  avoiding  of  cavillations  against  justification  by  faith,  seeing 
he  hath  none  other  word ;  neither  would  he  for  offence  seek 
any  new  word  to  express  justification  by  faith,  whereas  the 
word  ^iKaiiOfxara,  in  this  text,  Luke  i.  6.,  signifieth  not  that 
by  wliich  they  were  made  just,  but  the  commandments  or  pre- 
cepts of  God,  by  walking  in  which  they  were  declared  to  be 
just.  For  "  by  the  works  of  the  law"  (such  as  St  Luke  here 
speaketh  of)  "  no  flesh  shall  be  justified"  before  God.  Therefore 
^tKaiMfxara  in  this  place  must  have  another  sense  than  justi- 
fications, namely,  commandments,  as  you  say  it  is  often  taken, 
or  constitutions,  as  Beza  calleth  them,  which  before  God  and 
the  world  are  not  of  such  difference,  that  you  should  charge 
him  with  wilful  corruption  for  translating  that  word  constitu- 
tions, which  you  confess  signifieth  very  often  commandments, 
Wlierefore  here  appeareth  no  heretical  purpose,  except  you 
will  say  that  justification  by  faith,  which  St  Paul  so  often,  so 
diUgently,  and  so  purposedly  doth  teach,  is  an  heresy. 





*  Lo!  how 
simply,  Ani- 
tna,  carcase. 


Martin.  Again,  when  he  had  rejected  this  translation.  Act  ii.  27, 
Non  derelinques  anirriam  meam  in  inferno,  "  thou  shalt  not  leave  my 
soul  in  hell,"  'because,'  as  he  saith,  'hereupon  grew  the  en-ors  of 
Christ's  descending  into  heU,  of  limbus,  and  of  purgatory;  at  length 
he  concludeth  thus :  '  Whereas  the  doubtful  interpretation  of  one  or 
two  words  hath  brought  forth  so  many  monsters,  I  chose  rather  simply* 
for  'soul'  to  say  carcase;  for  'hell,'  grave;  than  to  foster  these  foul 

Fulke.  Beza  sheweth,  that  because  the  doubtful  inter- 
pretation of  the  Hebrew  word  sheol  into  ot^j^s,  which  doth  not 
properly  signify  "hell,"  but  a  dark  place,  such  as  the  pit  is 
wherein  the  dead  are  put,  and  of  the  poets  is  taken  for  hell, 
had  bred  such  monsters  as  limbus  patruni,  purgatory,  and 
Christ's  descending  into  them ;  therefore  he  did  plamly  trans- 
late that  verse  as  it  is  meant,  of  the  raising  up  of  Christ's 
body  out  of  the  grave;  which,  if  he  had  translated  out  of  He- 
brew, as  he  did  out  of  Greek,  had  not  been  offensive  nor 
untrue,  as  I  have  shewed  in  answer  to  your  preface,  sect.  46, 
and  of  this  chapter,  sect.  32.  But  seeing  Beza  himself  hath 
altered  that  translation,  and  it  was  never  followed  of  our 
English  translators,  what  demonstration  is  this,  that  we  are 
wilful  corrupters  of  the  holy  scriptures  ? 


Acts  iii.  21. 

Flac.  niyr. 



Martin.  Again,  when  he  had  translated  for  "  Whom  heaven  must 
receive,"  thus,  "  who  must  be  contained  in  heaven,"  he  saith :  '  Whereas 
we  have  used  the  passive  kind  of  speech,  rather  than  the  active,'  which 
is  in  the  Greek,  'we  did  it  to  avoid  all  ambiguity.  For  it  is  very 
expedient  that  there  should  be  in  the  church  of  God  this  perspicuous 
testimony  against  them,  that  for  ascending  by  faith  into  heaven,  so  to 
be  joined  to  our  Head,  obstinately  maintain  that  Christ  must  be  called 
again  out  of  heaven  unto  us :'  meaning  his  presence  in  the  blessed 
sacrament,  and  inveighing  no  less  against  the  Lutherans  than  the 
catholics,  as  the  Lutherans  do  here  against  him  for  this  wilful  inter- 
pretation, and  that  by  Calvin's  own  judgment,  who  thinketh  it  a  forced 

Fulke.  True  it  is,  that  he  meant  concerning  the  manner 
of  Christ's  presence  in  the  blessed  sacrament,  and  that  he  so 
translated,  to  exclude  the  carnal  manner  of  presence,  which 
the  papists  have  invented :  but  all  this  while  the  translation 
is  true,  and  warranted  by  Gregory  Nazianzen,  as  I  have 
shewed  before,  sect.  36  of  this  chapter.  For  he  that  saith, 
'heaven  must  receive  Christ,'  (as  you  do,)  cannot  deny,  except 
he  be  mad,  but  that  Christ  must  be  received  of  heaven.     So 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  159 

that  Beza  doth  none  otherwise  translate,  than  you  do,  Qui 
dcemonia  hahebant;  which  is  actually  thus  to  be  translated, 
"those  who  had  devils,"  and  you  say,  'which  were  possest  of 
devils,'  that  is,  were  had  of  devils.  That  the  Lutherans  did 
find  fault  with  Beza's  translation,  it  proveth  it  not  to  be  false : 
he  hath  justified  it  sufficiently  in  his  answer  to  Selneccerus 
and  the  divines  of  Jena.  Neither  doth  Calvin  (as  you  say 
untruly)  think  it  a  forced  translation;  but  not  weighing  the 
sentence  sufficiently,  supposeth  that  the  words  are  placed  am- 
biguously, for  that  it  seemeth  to  be  doubtful  whether  we 
should  say,  that  heaven  must  receive  Christ,  or  that  Christ 
must  receive  heaven.  But  if  it  be  once  granted  (as  it  is  of 
you)  that  heaven  must  receive  Christ,  there  is  neither  Calvin 
nor  niyricus,  nor  any  man  that  beareth  the  face  but  of  a 
young  grammarian,  yea,  of  a  reasonable  man,  which  can  deny 
that  conversion  by  the  passive :  Christ  must  be  received  of 
heaven.  Therefore,  if  you  had  any  respect  of  your  credit 
with  men  of  understanding,  you  would  not  for  shame  rehearse 
this  quarrel  so  often ;  which  hath  not  so  much  as  any  colour  or 
shew  of  reason  to  maintain  it,  but  that  you  abuse  the  names 
of  niyricus  and  Calvin,  as  misliking  it,  whose  arguments  by 
no  means  will  serve  your  turn,  because  that  which  is  denied 
by  them,  or  doubtful  to  them,  is  plain  and  confessed  by  you. 

Martin.  But  Beza  goeth  forward  still  in  this  kind.  Rom.  v.  18,  Martin, 
whereas  Erasmus  had  put  propagatum  est,  indifferently,  both  of 
Adam's  sin,  which  made  us  truly  sinners,  and  of  Christ's  justice,  which 
maketh  us  truly  just;  he  rejecting  it,  among  other  causes  why  it  dis- 
pleased him,  saith :  "  That  old  error  of  the  sophists,"  meaning  catholics, 
"  which  for  imputative  justice  put  an  inherent  quality  in  the  place,  is 
so  great  and  so  execrable  to  all  good  men,  that  I  think  nothing  is  so 
much  to  be  avoided  as  it." 

Fulke.  A  manifest  echpsis,  or  want  of  words,  being  in  Fclke, 
that  verse,  for  which  Erasmus  hath  put  pr&pagatum  est,  ^^' 
which  word  is  ambiguous,  and  may  give  occasion  of  error,  for 
men  to  think  that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  cometh  by  pro- 
pagation, as  the  guiltiness  of  Adam  doth ;  Beza  thought  good 
to  supply  the  lack,  rather  by  such  words  as  are  warranted  by 
the  text,  verses  12,  15,  and  16,  and  can  give  no  occasion  of 
error.  And  therefore  thus  he  rendereth  that  verse  :  Nempe 
igitur,  sicut  per  unam  offensam  reatua  venit  in  omnes  homi- 

160  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

nes  ad  condemnationem  ;  ita  per  unam  justificationem  bene- 
ficium  redimdavit  in  omnes  homines  ad  justificationem  vitce. 
"  Now  therefore,  as  by  one  offence  guiltiness  came  upon  all 
men  unto  condemnation ;  so  by  one  justification  the  benefit 
abounded  toward  all  men  unto  justification  of  life."  In  this 
verse  these  words,  "guiltiness  came,"  and  "the  benefit 
abounded,"  are  added  for  expUcation  sake,  and  are  taken  out 
of  the  verses  going  before,  in  which  the  apostle  speaketh  of 
the  same  matter.  Therefore  Beza,  to  avoid  occasion  of  the 
heresy  of  the  papists,  of  justice  inherent,  among  other  causes 
which  he  rehearseth,  refuseth  that  word  by  which  Erasmus 
supphed  the  text,  and  useth  such  words  for  that  purpose,  as 
the  apostle  himself  in  the  verses  jirecedent  doth  off^er,  for  this 
necessary  supply  :  which  seeing  it  must  be  made,  that  there 
may  be  a  sense  and  understanchng,  who  can  mislike  that  it 
should  be  made  by  the  apostle's  own  words  ?  or  who  can 
suppose  that  the  apostle  would  leave  any  other  words  to  be 
understood,  than  such  as  he  himself  had  before  expressed  ? 
And  as  for  the  heresy  of  inherent  justice,  [it]  can  have  no  hold 
in  this  verse,  except  some  such  word  be  added  for  supply,  as 
the  apostle  never  used  in  this  case.  That  Christ's  justice  doth 
make  us  as  truly  just,  as  Adam's  sin  made  us  truly  sinners, 
there  is  no  question:  but  by  what  means  we  are  made  just,  we 
say,  as  the  scrip tm^e  teacheth  us  to  speak,  that  justice  is  im- 
puted to  us  through  faith,  Rom,  iv.  The  papists  say  it  is  a 
quahty  inherent  within  us;  for  which  words  and  matter  they 
have  no  warrant  in  the  holy  scripture. 

Madtin,  Martin.     These  few  examples  prove  unto  us  that  the  scriptures 

'    ■  translated  verbatim,  exactly,  and  according-  to  the  proper  use  and  signi- 

fication of  the  words,  do  by  the  heretics'  confession  make  for  the 
catholics ;  and  therefore  Beza  saitli  he  altereth  the  words  into  other  : 
and,  I  think,  it  may  suffice  any  indifferent  reader  to  judge  of  his  purpose 
and  meaning  in  other  places  of  his  translation,  and  consequently  of  theirs 
that  either  allow  him,  or  follow  him,  which  are  our  English  Calvinists 
and  Bezites.  Many  other  ways  there  are  to  make  most  certain  proof 
Cai.  Heb  of  their  wilfulness,  as  when  the  translation  is  framed  according  to  their 
Titus  iii.  6.     false  and  heretical  commentary ;  and  when  they  will  avouch  their  trans- 

Beza  ^  Thess 

ii.  15. 'and      lations  out  of  profane  writers.  Homer,  Plutarch,  Pliny,  Tully,  Virgil, 

"'■  ■  and  Terence,  and  reject  the  ecclesiastical  use  of  words  in  the  scriptures 

and  fathers;  which  Beza  doth  for  the  most  part  always.     But  it  were 

infinite  to  note  all  the  marks,  and  by  these  the  wise  reader  may  conceive 

the  rest. 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  161 

Fulke.  These  examples  prove  nothing  less.  For  to  run  Fulke, 
over  them  all  briefly,  the  first  two  we  translate  verbatim,  ^^' 
"A  man  is  justified  by  fiiith  without  the  works  of  the  law," 
and  "repent"  and  "repentance"  we  say  for  /ueravoelv  and 
fxeTcivoia.  What  make  these  for  popery  ?  If  Luke  i.  6,  we 
should  call  ^iKaKOfxara,  "justifications,"  what  should  popery 
gain  but  a  vain  cavil,  when  yourselves  confess,  that  those 
justifications  are  often  used  for  commandments?  Acts  ii.  27, 
all  our  EngUsh  translations  are  as  you  would  have  them, 
"Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell,  nor  suffer  thy  holy 
one  to  see  corruption ;"  by  which  verse  no  descent  into 
limbus,  but  the  resurrection  from  death,  can  be  proved. 
If  we  translate  as  you  do  Acts  iii.  21,  "whom  heaven 
must  receive,"  we  will  easily  convince  that  Christ  must  be 
received  of  heaven.  In  the  last  example  the  question  is  not, 
how  the  word  is  to  be  translated,  but  by  what  word  the 
want  of  the  text  is  to  be  suppUed ;  which  we  supply  not  with 
words  of  our  own,  but  with  the  apostle's  own  words. 

Have  you  not  gained  greatly  by  translating  verbatim, 
exactly,  and  according  to  the  proper  use  and  signification  of 
the  words  ?  I  like  well,  that  every  indifferent  reader  may 
judge  by  these  examples  of  Beza's  purpose  in  other  places 
of  his  translation.  But  you  have  two  other  ways  to  make 
certain  proof  of  their  wilfulness.  The  first  is,  when  the  trans- 
lation is  framed  according  to  their  heretical  commentary. 
A  reasonable  man  would  think  rather  that  the  commentary 
were  framed  according  to  the  text,  than  the  text  to  the 
commentary.  But  to  justify  the  truth  of  those  translations, 
for  the  first  text  you  quote,  it  is  handled  sect.  26  of  tliis 
chapter,  and  so  consequently  cap.  vii.  The  second  is  answered 
sect.  46 ;  the  other  two  concerning  tradition  sect.  23  of  the 
preface,  and  in  the  chapter  following.  The  second  way  of 
proof  is,  when  they  wijl  avouch  their  translations  out  of  pro- 
fane writers.  I  think  there  is  no  better  way  to  know  the 
proper  or  cUverse  signification  of  words,  than  out  of  ancient 
writers,  though  they  be  never  so  profane,  who  used  the  words 
most  indifferently  in  respect  of  our  controversies,  of  which 
they  were  altogether  ignorant.  As  for  the  ecclesiastical  use 
of  words  in  the  scripture  and  the  fathers,  which  Beza  (you 
say)  doth  for  the  most  part  reject,  it  is  untrue :  except  there 
be  good  and  sufficient  cause  why  he  should  so  do,  warranted 


162  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH, 

by  the  scripture  itself,  or  necessary  circumstances  of  the 
places  which  he  doth  translate.  For  if  the  scripture  have 
used  a  word  in  one  signification  sometimes,  it  is  not  ne- 
cessary that  it  should  always  use  it  in  the  same  signification, 
when  it  is  proved  by  ancient  writers  that  the  word  hath  other 
significations,  more  proper  to  the  place,  and  agreeable  to  the 
rule  of  faith,  which  perhaps  the  usual  signification  is  not.  As 
for  example,  the  scriptm^e  useth  very  often  this  word  Trots  for 
a  "boy,"  or  "servant :"  but  when  the  same  word  is  apphed  to 
our  Saviour  Christ  in  the  prayer  of  the  apostles.  Acts  iv.  27, 
who  would  not  translate  it  "child,"  or  "son,"  as  the  word  doth 
sometime,  but  more  seldom,  signify  ?  How  the  fathers  of  the 
church  have  used  words,  it  is  no  rule  for  translators  of  the 
scripture  to  follow ;  who  oftentimes  used  words  as  the  people 
did  then  take  them,  and  not  as  they  signified  in  the  apostles' 
time :  as  fxeravoia  for  a  public  testification  of  repentance, 
which  we  call  "penance,"  ■^^eiporovia  for  "imposition  of  hands," 
and  such  lilie ;  in  which  sense  these  words  were  never  used 
before  the  apostles'  times,  and  therefore  it  is  not  like  that 
they  would  begin  a  new  use  of  them,  without  some  manifest 
explication  of  their  meaning,  without  the  which  no  man 
could  have  understood  them ;  as  they  have  done  in  the  use 
of  these  words  Tr/crTi?,  (iarrTidiJia^  eKKXrjcria,  and  such  like. 
It  is  not  a  fault  therefore  prudently  to  seek  even  out  of  pro- 
fane writers,  what  is  the  proper  signification  of  words,  and. 
how  many  significations  a  word  may  have,  and  reverently  to 
judge,  which  is  most  apt  for  the  place  to  be  translated,  and 
most  agreeable  with  the  Holy  Ghost's  meaning  in  that  text ; 
and  not  always  to  be  tied  to  the  usual  signification  of  words, 
as  they  are  sometimes  taken  in  scripture,  and  much  less 
as  they  are  used  of  the  ancient  fathers. 

Martin,  Martin.    But  would  you  think  that  these  men  could  notwithstand- 

Annot.  ing   speak   very   gravely   and   honestly   against   voluntary   and    wilful 

translations  of  scripture,  that  so  notoriously  offend  therein  themselves  ? 
Hearken  what  Beza  saith  against  Castalio  and  the  like.  "  The  matter," 
saith  he,  "  is  now  come  to  this  point,  that  the  translators  of  scripture 
out  of  the  Greek  into  Latin,  or  into  any  other  tongue,  think  that  they 
may  lawfully  do  any  thing  in  translating.  Whom  if  a  man  reprehend, 
he  shall  be  answered  by  and  by,  that  they  do  the  office  of  a  translator, 
not  that  translatcth  word  for  word,  but  that  expresseth  the  sense.  So 
it  Cometh  to  pass,  that  whiles  every  man  will  rather  freely  follow  hia 
own  judgment,  than  be  a  religious  interpreter  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he 

Acts  X.  46. 

I.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  163 

doth  rather  pervert  many  things  than  translate  them."  Is  not  this  well 
said,  if  he  had  done  accordingly  1  but  doing  the  clean  contrary,  as  hath 
been  proved,  he  is  a  dissembling  hypocrite  in  so  saying,  and  a  wilful 
heretic  in  so  doing,  and  condemned  by  his  own  judgment. 

Fulke.  No  wise  man  doubteth,  but  they  could  both  Fulke, 
speak  very  gravely  and  avoid  most  rehgiously  all  voluntary 
and  wilful  translations  of  scripture,  that  might  tend  to  main- 
tain any  error.  And  the  rather  they  will  be  persuaded,  that 
Beza  hath  avoided  that  lewd  kind  of  translation,  for  which 
he  reproveth  Castalio,  when  they  shall  see  that  you,  so 
malicious  an  enemy  unto  him,  having  spent  all  your  invention 
to  seek  holes  in  Ms  translation,  can  find  nothing  but  such 
childish  cavils,  as  when  they  be  discovered,  men  will  marvel 
that  you  were  not  ashamed  to  move  them. 

Martin.  But  after  this  general  view  of  their  wilful  piirpose  and  Martin, 
heretical  intention,  let  us  examine  their  false  translations  more  particu-  * 
larly,  and  argue  the  case  with  them  more  at  large,  and  press  them  to 
answer,  whether  in  their  conscience  it  be  so  or  no,  as  hitherto  is  said ; 
and  that  by  several  chapters  of  such  controversies  as  their  corruptions 
concern ;  and  first  of  all  (without  further  curiosity  whence  to  begin,  in 
cases  so  indifferent)  of  traditions. 

Fulke.  The  more  particularly  you  examine  our  trans-  Fulke, 
lations,  the  freer,  I  hope,  they  shall  be  found  from  false-  ^^• 
hood  and  witful  corruption.  And  the  more  at  large  you 
argue  the  case,  and  press  us  to  answer,  the  more  you  shall 
make  the  case  to  appear  worse  on  your  side,  and  the  truth 
clearer  on  our  part.  And  as  God  is  witness  of  our  con- 
science and  sincerity  in  setting  forth  his  word,  without  adulte- 
ration or  corruption;  so  I  appeal  to  the  consciences  of  all 
indiiferent  readers,  whether  hitherto  you  have  gotten  any 
advantage  against  us  in  this  whole  chapter,  which  yet  you 
profess  to  be  the  abridgement  and  sum  of  your  whole 

Jl— 2 

164  A    DEPENCK    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 


Heretical  Translation  of  Holy  Scripture  against  Apostolical 

Matitin,  1.        Martin.    This  is  a  matter  of  such  importance,  that  if  they  should 
grant  any  traditions  of  the  apostles,  and  not  pretend  the  written  word 
« See  the  an-  Only,  they  know  that  by  "^such  traditions,  mentioned  in  all  antiquity,  their 
the  new  tes-  religion  were  wholly  defaced  and  overthrown.     For  remedy  whereof, 
2'Thess.'ii.  15.  ^^d  for  the  defacing  of  all  such  traditions,  they  bend  their  translations 
against  them  in  this  wonderful  manner.    Wheresoever  the  holy  scrip- 
ture speaketh  against  certain  traditions  of  the  Jews,  partly  frivolous, 
partly  repugnant  to  the  law  of  God,  there  all  the  English  translations 
'jrapd6o<ri<!.  follow  the  Greek  exactly,  never  omitting  this  word  "  tradition."    Con- 
trariwise, wheresoever  the  holy  scripture  speaketh  in  the  commendation 
of  traditions,  to  wit,  such  traditions  as  the  apostles   delivered  to  the 
church,  there  all  their  said  translations  agree,  not  to  follow  the  Greek, 
which  is  still  the  selfsame  word;  but  for  "traditions,"  they  translate 
"  ordinances,"  or  "  instructions."    Why  so,  and  to  what  purpose  ?  We 
appeal  to  the  worm  of  their  conscience,  which  continually  accuseth 
them  of  an  heretical  meaning,  whether  by  urging  the  word,  "traditions," 
wheresoever  they  are  discommended,  and  by  suppressing  the  word  where- 
soever they  are  commended,  their  purpose  and  intent  be  not  to  signify 
to  the  reader  that  alljtraditions  are  naught,  and  none  good ;  all  reproveable, 
none  allowable. 

FuLKE,  1.  Fulke.  Traditions  indeed  is  a  matter  of  such  import- 
ance, as  if  you  may  be  allowed  whatsoever  you  will  tlirust 
upon  us  under  the  name  of  unwritten  traditions,  the  written 
word  of  God  shall  serve  to  no  purpose  at  all.  For  first, 
as  you  plainly  profess,  the  holy  scripture  shall  not  be  ac- 
counted sufficient  to  teach  all  truth  necessary  to  salvation, 
that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  prepared  to  all  good 
works.  Secondly,  with  the  Valentinian  heretics,  you  accuse 
the  scriptures  of  uncertain  understanding  without  your  tra- 
ditions ;  under  pretence  of  which  you  will  bring  in  what 
you  hst,  though  it  be  never  so  contrary  to  the  holy  scrip- 
ture's plain  words,  by  colour  of  interpretation,  as  you  do  the 
worshipping  of  images,  and  many  other  hke  heresies.  As 
for  the  mention  that  is  made  of  apostolical  traditions  in 
divers  of  the  ancient  fathers,  some  of  them  are  such  as  you 
yourselves  observe  not,  and  not  for  the  tenth  part  of  those 
that  you  observe  can  you  bring  any  testimony  out  of   the 

II  ]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  165 

ancient  fathers ;  as  is  proved  sufficiently  by  so  many  propo- 
sitions as  were  set  down  by  the  bishop  of  Salisbury,  M. 
Jewel,  whereof  you  can  bring  no  proof  for  any  one  to  have 
been  taught  within  600  years  after  Christ.  Now  concern- 
ing the  traditions  of  the  apostles,  what  they  were,  who  can 
be  a  better  witness  unto  us  than  Ignatius,  the  disciple  of  the 
apostles,  of  whom  Eusebius  writeth,  that  when  he  was  led 
towards  Rome,  where  he  suffered  martyrdom,  he  earnestly 
exhorted  the  churches  by  which  he  passed,  to  continue  in 
the  faith,  and  against  all  heresies,  which  even  then  began 
to  bud  up,  he  charged  them  to  retain  fast  the  tradition  of 
the  apostles,  which  by  that  time  he  protested  to  be  com- 
mitted to  writing ;  for  by  that  time  were  all  the  books  of 
the  new  testament  written.  The  words  of  Eusebius  concern- 
ing tliis  matter  are,  Lib.  iii.  cap.  35  :  Trpovrperre  re  aTrpl^ 
ej^ecrOai  t^s  twi'  airoaroXwu  irapaooaew^,  r)v  virep  aacbaXeias 
Kai  eyypaCpo)^  rjori  luapTvpo/iefo^  ciaTvirovaOai  avaynaiov 
tjyelro.  "  And  he  exhorted  them  straitly  to  keep  the  tra- 
dition of  the  apostles,  which,  testifying  that  it  was  now  for 
assurance  committed  to  writing,  he  thought  necessary  to  be 
plainly  taught."  Against  tliis  tradition  of  the  apostles,  which 
for  certainty  and  assurance  is  contained  in  their  holy  and  un- 
doubted writings,  we  say  nothing,  but  strive  altogether  for  it. 
But  because  the  word  "traditions"  is  by  you  papists  taken  to 
signify  a  doctrine  secretly  delivered  by  word  of  mouth,  with- 
out authority  of  the  holy  scriptures,  we  do  willingly  avoid 
the  word  in  our  translations,  where  the  simple  might  be 
deceived,  to  think  that  the  Holy  Ghost  did  ever  commend 
any  such  to  the  church,  which  he  would  not  have  to  be  com- 
mitted to  writing  in  the  holy  scriptures ;  and  instead  of  that 
word  so  commonly  taken,  although  it  doth  not  necessarily 
signify  any  such  matters,  we  do  use  such  words  as  do  truly 
express  the  apostle's  meaning,  and  the  Greek  word  doth  also 
signify.  Therefore  we  use  the  words  of  "ordinances,"  or  "in- 
structions," or  "institutions,"  or  "the  doctrine  deHvered,"  all 
which,  being  of  one  sense,  the  Greek  word  irapd^ocn^  doth 
signify,  and  the  same  doth  "tradition"  signify,  if  it  be  rightly 
understood :  but  seeing  it  hath  been  commonly  taken,  and  is 
urged  of  the  papists  to  signify  only  a  doctrine  dehvered 
beside  the  word  of  God  written,  in  such  places  where  the 
Holy  Ghost  useth  the  Greek  word  TrapdSoai^  in  that  sense, 

166  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

we  translate  by  that  word  "  tradition ;"  where  he  useth  it  for 
such  doctrine  as  is  grounded  upon  the  holy  scriptures,  our 
translators  have  avoided  it,  not  of  any  heretical  meaning, 
that  all  irapaSocrei?,  "traditions,"  are  naught,  but  that  all  such 
as  have  not  the  holy  scripture  to  testify  of  them,  and  to  war- 
rant them,  are  evil,  and  to  be  avoided  of  all  true  Christians; 
which  cannot  without  blasphemy  acknowledge  any  imper- 
fection in  the  holy  scriptures  of  God,  which  are  able  to  make 
a  man  wise  unto  salvation,  if  they  should  think  any  doctrine 
necessary  to  salvation  not  to  be  contained  therein. 

Martin,  2.        Martin.    For  example.  Matt.  XV.',  thus  they  translate,  "Why  do  thy 

vapaSocTLv.  disciples  transgress  the  tradition  of  the  elders  V    And  again,  "  Why  do 

you  also  transgress  the  commandment  of  God  by  your  tradition  V    And 

again,  "  Thus  have  you  made  the  commandment  of  God  of  no  effect 

by  your  tradition."     Here,  I  warrant  you,  all  the  bells  sound  "  tradition," 

and  the  word  is  never  omitted ;  and  it  is  very  well  and  honestly  trans- 

SThes^ii.  15.  lated,  for  so  the  Greek  word  doth  properly  signify.     But  now  on  the 

o-ejs,  other  side,  concerning  good  traditions,  let  us  see  their  dealing.     The 

traditiones.     apostle  by  the  selfsame  words,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  saith  thus : 

"  Therefore,  brethren,  stand  and  hold  fast  the  traditions  which  you  have 

learned  either  by  word,  or  by  our  epistle^."    And  again,  "Withdraw 

2  Thess.  iii.  6.  yourselves  from  every  brother  walking  inordinately,  and  not  according 

to  the  tradition  which  they  have  received  of  us  ^."  And  again,  according 

1  Cor.  xi.  2.    to  the  Greek  which  they  profess  to  follow :  "  I  praise  you,  brethren, 

P  Atari  ol  ^udrjTai  aov  rrapa^aivovtri  ttjv  Trapahoaiv  twv  Trpea- 
^vrepcov;    Matt.  XV.  2.] 

[2  Kat  Kparfire  ras  TrapaSoa-eis  as  ebiMxOrjTf.  2  Thess.  ii.  15. 
"Tenete  traditiones  quas  didicistis,"  Vulg.  "Tenete  traditam  doctri- 
nam,  quam  edocti  estis,"  Beza. 

"Hold  ye  the  traditions  that  ye  have  learned,"  Wiclif.  "  Keep 
the  ordinances  which  ye  have  learned,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "Keep 
the  instructions  which  ye  have  learned,"  Geneva.  "Hold  the  tradi- 
tions which  you  have  learned,"  Rheims.  "Hold  the  traditions  which 
you  have  been  taught,"  Authorised  version.] 

P  Kai  pfj  Kara  rrjv  irapa^ocriv  rjv  TrapeKa^ov  Trap'  i]pS)V,  2  Thess.  iii.  6. 
"Et  non  secundum  traditionem  quam  accepemnt  a  nobis,"  Vulg.  "Et 
non  ex  tradita  doctrina  quam  accepit  a  nobis,"  Beza. 

"And  not  after  the  teaching  that  they  received  of  us,"  Wiclif. 
"  And  not  after  the  institution  which  he  received  of  us,"  Tyndale, 
Cranmer.  "And  not  after  the  instruction  which  he  received  of  us,' 
Geneva.  "Not  according  to  the  tradition  which  they  have  received 
of  us,"  Rheims.  "Not  after  the  tradition  which  he  received  of  us," 
Authorised  version.] 

11.]  TRANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  167 

that  in  all  things  you  are  mindful  of  me,  and  as  I  have  delivered  unto  /caOws 
you,  you  keep  my  traditions \"  .  ZT^^p"'- 

Fulke.  No  marvel,  though  you  cannot  avoid  the  bells  "^vi^^^^ 
sounding  against  man's  traditions ;  which  sound  must  needs 
pierce  your  conscience  more  than  it  offendeth  your  ears, 
seeing  you  know  that  many  of  those  things  which  you  defend 
under  the  name  of  traditions,  against  the  holy  scriptures, 
have  not  God  for  their  author,  which  forbiddeth  to  be  wor- 
shipped in  such  sort,  but  man,  or  rather  Satan,  which  hath 
inspired  such  things  unto  men,  thereby  to  dishonour  God, 
and  to  discredit  his  holy  and  most  certain  written  word.  Yet 
you  say  it  is  well  and  honestly  translated.  God  knoweth 
how  fain  you  would  there  were  no  such  text  extant  in  the 
gospel  against  your  superstition  and  will-worsliipping.  But 
now  let  us  see  our  crafty  dealing  (as  you  count  it)  against 
good  traditions.  In  the  first  text,  2  Thess.  ii.  15,  you  may 
see  your  understanding  of  traditions  quite  overthrown.  For 
the  apostle  speaketh  of  such  traditions  as  were  delivered  to 
them  partly  by  preaching,  and  partly  by  his  epistle.  There- 
fore tradition  doth  not  signify  a  doctrine  delivered  by  word 
of  mouth  only.  But  yet  you  will  say  it  signifieth  here  a 
doctrine  dehvered  by  word  of  mouth  also,  which  is  not  writ- 
ten. How  prove  you  that?  because  all  that  the  apostle 
preached  was  not  contained  in  his  epistles  to  the  Thessa- 
lonians,  therefore  was  it  nowhere  written  in  the  scriptures? 
What  the  tradition  was  in  the  second  text,  2  Thess.  iii.  6,  is 
expressed  by  and  by  after:  "that  he  which  will  not  labour 
must  not  eat."  Was  this  doctrine  never  written  before? 
when  God  commandeth  every  man  to  labour  in  his  vocation. 
As  for  the  third  place,  1  Cor.  xi.  2,  your  own  vulgar  Latin 
translator  both  teacheth  us  how  to  translate  it,  and  also  dis- 
chargeth  our  translation  of  heresy  and  corruption;  for  he 
calleth  irapd^ocrei^  in  that  place,  " prcecepta^,"  precepts,  or 
instructions,  or  commandments,  or  ordinances:  I  see  no  great 
difference  in  these  words.  By  which  his  translation  he 
sheweth,  that  in  the  other  places,  2  Thess.  ii.  and  iii.,  he 
meaneth  the  same  tiling  by  traditiones,  "traditions,"  that  we 

r*  'ETratrS    be    Vfias,    aSeXf^ot,    on   navra   fiov   jiffivrjade,    Koi    Kadcos 
irapf8(0Ka  v[xiv,    ras  napadocreis   KaT€)(eTe.     1  Cor.  xi.  2.3 
[^  "Et  sicut  tradidi  vobis,  priecepta  mea  tenete,"  Vulg.] 

168  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH: 

do  by  "ordinances"  or  "instructions",  and  might  as  well  have 
used  the  word  prwcepta  in  those  two  places,  as  he  did  in 
this  one,  if  it  had  pleased  him. 

]Martin,3.        Martin.     Here  we  see  plain  mention  of  St  Paul's  traditions,  and 

consequently  of  apostolical  traditions,  yea,  and  traditions  by  word  of 

mouth,  delivered  to  the  churches  without  writing  or  scripture.     In  all 

which  places  look,  gentle  reader,  and  seek  all  their  English  translations, 

YetM. Fuike  and  tliou  shalt  not  once  find  the  word  "tradition,"  but  instead  thereof, 

found  there,    "  Ordinances,"  "  instructions,''  "preachings,"  "institutions,"  and  any  word 

a"wnst '        else  rather  than  "tradition,"    Insomuch  that  Beza,  their  master,  trans- 

Ko^ke"^^lf     lateth   it  "  traditam  doctrinam,"  "  the  doctrine  delivered,"  putting  the 

he  give  not    singular  number  for  the  plural,  and  adding  "  doctrine"  of  his  own :  so 

stance,  let      framing  the  text  of  holy  scripture  according  to  liis  false  commentary,  or 

himself  the    rather  putting  his  commentary  in  the  text,  and  making  it  the  text  of 

2  Thess.  ii.     scripture.     Who  would  think  their  malice  and  partiality  against  tradi- 

^apaoo-      tions  were  so  great,  that  they  should  all  agree  with  one  consent  so  duly 

o-eis.  and  exactly  in  these  and  these  places  to  conceal  the  word,  which  in  other 

places  do  so  gladly  use  it,  the  Greek  word  being  all  one  in  all  the  said 

places  ? 

FuLKEj  3.  Fulke.  There  is  no  question  but  the  apostles  by  word 
of  mouth,  that  is,  by  preaching  and  teaching,  dehvered  the 
doctrine  of  the  gospel  to  the  churches;  but  that  they  preached, 
taught,  or  dehvered  any  doctrine  as  necessary  to  salvation, 
which  they  proved  not  out  of  the  holy  scriptures,  and  which 
is  not  contained  in  the  new  testament  or  the  old,  this  is 
not  yet  proved,  neither  ever  can  it  be  proved.  Such  matters 
of  ceremonies,  order,  and  discipline,  which  are  mutable,  no 
man  denies  but  they  might  and  did  deliver ;  but  yet  in 
them  nothing  but  agreeable  to  the  general  rules  set  down 
in  the  scripture.  But  in  all  these  places  the  word  "  tradi- 
tion" cannot  once  be  found.  Yet  M.  Fulke  saith  it  is  found. 
Yea,  doth  ?  where  saith  he  so  ?  You  answer,  p.  153, 
against  D.  Saunders'  Rocke.  Therefore,  if  he  give  not  an 
instance,  let  liim  give  himself  the  He.  But  he  that  chargeth 
Fulke  to  say  it  is  found,  heth  the  more.  For  so  he  saith 
not :  read  the  place  who  will.  He  speaketh  against  Saunders, 
who  affirmed  that  the  very  name  of  "tradition"  used  in  the 
better  part,  cannot  be  suffered  to  be  in  the  Enghsh  bible, 
as  though  there  were  some  decree  of  the  synod,  or  act  of 
parliament  against  it ;  and  saith,  it  may  be  and  is  suffered 
in  that  sense   which  the  Holy  Ghost  useth  it,  but   not    to 

U.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  169 

bring  prayer  for  the   dead,    or  any  thing  contrary   to   the 
scripture  under  the  name  of  traditions  apostohc.     By  which 
words  I  mean,  that  there  is   no  prohibition  or  edict  to  the 
contrary,  but  if  any  man  will  use  the  word  tradition  in  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  he  is  permitted  so  to  do:  I  do  not  affirm 
it  is   so   found.     But  as  if  I   should   say.    The  papists  in 
England  are   suffered  to  hve  as  becometh  good  subjects,   I 
affirm  not  that  they  are,  or  shall  be  found  so  to  live.      But 
to  omit  tliis  foohsh  quarrel,  Beza  our  master  is  said  to  have 
translated  Trapd^oaei'i,   "the  doctrme  dehvered,"  putting  the 
singular  number  for  the  plural,  and  adding  "  doctrine"  of  his 
own.  What  an  heinous  matter  here  is!    The  word  "doctrine" 
is  a  collective,  comprehending  many  precepts  or  traditions ; 
and  in  the  next  chapter  the  apostle  useth  the  same  word  in 
the  singular  number.     Again,  the  1  Thess.  iv.  2,  he  calleth  the 
same  TrapayyeXiw,  "precepts"  or  "documents,"  which  word 
signifieth  the  same  that  irapa^oaei's :  witness  your  vulgar  Latin 
translator,  which  gives  one  word  for  both,  prwcepta,  1  Cor.  xi. 
and  1  Thess.  iv.     And  that  the  word  doctrine  is  added  to 
the  text,  it  is  a  fond  cavil :  for  the  word  doctrine  is  con- 
tained in  Trapa^oai^,  which  signifieth  a  "dehvery ;"  but  where- 
of, if  not  of  doctrine  ?     Our  Saviour  Christ  also,  Matt.  xv.  9, 
by  the   testimony   of  Esay  reproveth  the   tradition  of  the 
Pharisees,    "  teaching  the  doctrines  precepts  of  men ;"  which 
testimony  of  Esay  could  take  no  hold  of  them,  if  traditions 
were  not  doctrines  and  precepts.     So  that  in  this  transla- 
tion of  Beza  (cry  out  as  loud  as  you  can)  there  is  neither 
fraud  nor  corruption,   mahce   nor  partiahty ;  but   a  prudent 
dechning  of  that  term,   wliich  might  give  occasion  of  error, 
and  the  apostle's  meaning  truly  and  faithfully  dehvered.      To 
shew  that  one  word  may  be  diversely  translated,  especially 
when  it  signifieth  divers  things,   to   wise   men  is   needless, 
I  have  said  before,   you  yourselves   translate,   (or   else  you 
should  be  taken  for   madmen,)   the  Latin  word   tradere,  of 
which  tradition  is  derived,  sometimes  "to  dehver,"  sometimes 
"to  betray,"  and  yet  the  Greek  and  Latin  word  bemg  all 
one  in  all  the  said  places. 

Martin.      Yea,    they    do    elsewhere    so    gladly   use    this    word,  Martin,  4. 
"tradition,"  when    it   may   tend   to   the    discredit  thereof,    that    they 
put  the  said  word  in  all  their  English  bibles,  with  the  like  full  con- 

170  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

Col.  ii.  10.      sent   as  before,  when  it  is  not  in  the  Greek  at  all :  as  when  they 

Tlooyjxa-    ^j.jjjjgijjtg  ^j^yg    «  jf  yg  be  dead  with  Christ  from  the  rudiments  of  the 

world,  why,  as  though  living  m  the  world,  are  ye  led  with  tra- 

*  Of  the  year  ditionsI"  and,  as  another  English  translation*  of  theirs  readeth  more 

heretically,  "  Why  are  ye  burdened  with  traditions  ?"    Tell  us  sincerely, 

you  that  profess  to  have  skill  in  the  Greek,  and  to  translate  according  to 

the  Greek ;  tell  us,  we  beseech  you,  whether  this  Greek  word  Soy/Lta 

Col.  ii.  24.      do  signify  "  tradition,"  and  BoyfiaTi^ea-daL  "  to  be  led  or  burdened  with 

ooy/uao-ii'.    traditions."  You  cannot  be  ignorant  that  it  doth  not  so  signify ;  but  as  a 

iv  66y-        jj^jig  before  in  the  same  chapter,  and  in  other  places,  yourselves  translate 

Soynara,  "ordinances,"  "  decrees,'  so  tl  BoyfiaTi^fcrde  must  be  (as  m  the 

vulgar  Latin  it  is)  quid  decernitis  '^   Why  do  you  "ordain, "  or  "  decree," 

or,  "  why  are  you  led  with  decrees  ?" 

FuLifE,  4.  Fulke.  It  grieveth  you  that  tradition  should  be  men- 
tioned in  the  ill  part  as  it  is.  And  it  seemeth  you  would 
defend  the  Colossians  against  St  Paul,  who  reproveth  them 
because  they  were  led  by  ordinances  according  to  the  "  pre- 
cepts and  doctrines  of  men."  But  you  seem  to  make  hght 
of  such  traditions,  and  therefore  you  count  that  the  more 
heretical  translation,  which  saith,  "  why  are  you  burdened 
with  traditions?"  Wlierefore,  I  pray  you,  is  that  more 
heretical  ?  Do  you  not  think  that  such  traditions  as  are  the 
commandments  and  doctrines  of  men,  are  burdensome  to  men's 
consciences  ?  But  they  that  have  skill  in  the  Greek  tongue 
must  tell  you  sincerely,  whether  tliis  word  ^oyina  doth  signify 
"  tradition,"  and  ^oynaTiXeaQai  "  to  be  led  or  burdened 
with  traditions,"  I  answer  you,  if  ^oyfxaTa,  as  you  confess, 
signify  "ordinances"  and  "decrees"  or  "doctrines,"  and  the 
word  tradition  signifieth  the  same,  why  should  not  ^oyiua- 
ritecrOai  "  to  be  led  or  burdened  with  traditions,"  as  well  as 
Avith  ordinances,  customs,  or  decrees?  These  words  differ 
much  in  sound,  but  not  greatly  in  signification.     Dogmata 

P  In  the  original,  ti  ws  C^vres  iv  Koa-fia  boyfiari^eade ;  in  Tyn- 
dale's  version,  1534,  "  Why,  as  though  ye  yet  lived  in  the  world,  are 
ye  led  with  traditions  of  them  that  say — "  Cranmer's  version  1539, 
and  the  Bishops'  bible,  "  Why,  as  though  ye  yet  lived  in  the  world, 
are  ye  led  with  traditions?"  The  Geneva  version,  1557,  "Wherefore, 
if  ye  be  dead  with  Christ  and  are  free  from  the  ordinances  of  the 
Avorld,  why,  as  though  ye  yet  lived  in  the  world,  are  ye  burdened  with 
traditions?"  In  the  Authorised  version,  "Why,  as  though  living  in 
the  world,  are  ye  subject  to  ordinances  ?"J 


Pythagorea,  that  might  never  be  put  in  writing,  what  were 
they  but  the  traditions  of  Pythagoras?  Such  were  the 
philosophical  decrees  called  Soynara,  whereof  TuUy  speaketh 
in  his  book  De  jinihus,  which  were  dictata,  taught  by 
word  of  mouth,  wliich  to  set  forth  among  them  was  coimted 
an  heinous  offence :  might  not  those  rightly  be  called  tra- 
ditions ? 

Martin.  Justify  your  translation,  if  you  can,  either  out  of  scriptures,  Martin,  5. 
fathers,  or  lexicon.    And  make  us  a  good  reason  why  you  put  the  word 
"  traditions"  here,  where  it  is  not  in  the  Greek  ;  and  would  not  put  it 
in  tlie  places  before,  where  you  know  it  is  most  evidently  in  the  Greek. 
Yea,  you  must  tell  us  why  you  translate  for  tradition,  "  ordinance,"  and  irapa^ocrii 
contrary  for  ordinance,  "tradition  ;"  so  turning  cat  in  pan  (as  they  say)  late^-'ordi- 
at  your  pleasure,  and  wresting  both  the  one  and  the  other  to  one  end,  l^^yf^a,  ^^^ 
that  you  may  make  the  very  name    of  traditions  odious   among  the  "^ tradition :" 
people,  be  they  never  so  authentical,  even  from  the  apostles,  which  your  trary. 
conscience  knoweth,  and  you  shall  answer  for  it  at  the  dreadful  day. 

Fulke.  First,  out  of  scripture  I  justify  it  thus :  those  Fulke,  5. 
dogmata,  against  which  the  apostle  writeth,  were  according 
to  the  precepts  and  doctrines  of  men :  but  such  the  scripture 
caUeth  traditions,  Matt.  xv.  Therefore  these  were  traditions. 
Secondly,  out  of  the  fathers :  Chrysostom^  upon  this  place 
saith,  Traditiones  Grcecorum  taxat,  he  reproveth  the  tra- 
ditions of  the  Greeks,  saying,  all  is  but  a  human  doctrine. 
Secondly,  St  Ambrose^  upon  tliis  text ;  "Love  not  the  world," 

^  IIws  Se  ov  Koa-fiov  Traparrjpria-ftTi;  Koi  opa  ttws  avToiis  Kcofia)8e7, 
[xrj  6lyr}S,  p-Tf  a\jn],  /lit)  yevcrj],  cos  peyaKoDV  rivav  air^xop-^vovs'  a  eVrt 
TTcivTa  els  (pdopav  tji  aTTO)(pi]aei.  KadelXe  rav  TToXkatv  ttjv  (fivcrlcixriVj 
KOL  eTTijyaye'  Kara  to.  eVraX/xara  /cat  ScBaaKoXias  rmv  avSprnwutv.  tl 
Xe'yeis ;  Kav  Tov  vopov  e'nrrjs,  \017r6v  diSacTKaXia  (crrlv  avOpcairov  peTa 
Tov  Kaipov.  1]  on  irapiTroiovv  avrov,  ovras  emfv,  7/  rot  tcop  'EXXt/j/qjj/ 
cilviTTfTai'  oXov  avdpainvov  to  hoypa  ea-ri,  (fyrjaiv.  Chrysost.  in  Epist. 
ad  Coloss.  cap.  ii.   Horn.  vii.   Opera,  Vol.  xi.  p.  372.  edit.  Benedict.] 

[^  Nolite,  inquit,  diligere  mundum,  neque  ea  quce  in  mundo  sunt; 
id  est,  neque  elementa,  quibus  compactus  est  mundus,  neque  errores 
quos  humana  adinvenit  traditio,  deligamus;  sed  solum  Christum  qui 
mortuus  est  pro  nobis.  Ambros.  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Coloss.  ii.  2. 
Opera,  Vol.  11.  p.  270.  Sagina  enim  carnalis  sensus  traditio  humana 
est...Hinc  enim  aggravati  non  poterant  sursum  jungi  capiti  suo.  p.  271. 
(super  V.  23.)]] 

172  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

saith  he,  "  nor  those  errors  quos  humana  adinvenit  traditio, 
"  which  the  tradition  of  men  hath  invented."  And  afterward, 
Sagina  enim  carnalis  sensics  humana  traditio  est:  "For 
the  tradition  of  man  is  the  pampering  of  carnal  sense ;  by 
which,  he  saith,  men  are  so  burdened,  that  they  cannot  be 
joined  to  the  head  which  is  above."  Yet  "  bm-dening  with 
traditions"  is  called  of  you  the  more  heretical  translation. 
Say  as  much  to  Ambrose,  that  he  maketh  an  heretical  com- 
mentary. The  interpreter  of  Theodoret,  printed  at  Collen, 
1573,  hath  translated  in  the  very  text,  for  ^t^acr/caXtas, 
"traditioneshominum,"  "traditions  of  men."  You  see  now,  this 
matter  is  not  so  void  of  testimony  of  the  fathers,  as  you  sup- 
posed. The  reason  you  require  us  to  make,  is  made  often 
before.  We  thought  it  not  meet  to  express  the  Greek  word 
in  both  places  by  the  same  English  word,  because  the 
Enghsh  word,  as  it  is  used  by  you,  is  not  so  indifferent,  to 
signify  the  doctrine  of  God  dehvered  out  of  the  scriptures, 
as  to  signify  doctrines  of  men  devised  beside  the  scriptures. 
K  we  must  answer  why  we  call  tradition  "  ordinance,"  and 
ordinance  "  tradition  ; "  let  your  vulgar  Latin  interpreter  an- 
swer us,  or  you  for  him,  why  he  calleth  tradition  "  precept," 
and  usage  or  precept  "tradition"?  The  one  he  doth  1  Cor. 
xi.  2,  the  other  Acts  vi.  14,  where  the  Greek  is  eO^,  signify- 
ing there  "  precepts,"  or  "  observations  commanded,"  he  trans- 
lateth  traditiones,  as  in  the  other  place  the  Greek  being 
Trapa^daei^  he  translateth  " proicepta."  If  tliis  be  lawful  for 
him,  why  should  it  be  counted  corruption  or  false  trans- 
lation in  us?  seeing  we  are  moved  with  as  good  reason 
as  can  be  yielded  for  him.  As  for  authentical  and  apos- 
tolical traditions,  that  are  grounded  upon  the  doctrine  of  the 
apostles  expressed  in  their  writings,  we  shall  be  ready  to 
receive  them,  whensoever  they  shall  be  brought  forth.  If 
they  cannot  be  proved  by  the  scriptures,  which  are  "written 
that  we  might  beheve,  and  beheving  have  eternal  life,"  and 
"  which  are  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation,"  we  have 
nothing  to  do  with  them :  we  may  well  spare  them :  nay, 
we  dare  not  admit  them,  lest  we  should  answer  for  blas- 
phemy against  the  holy  scriptures  in  that  di^eadful  day,  if 
by  admitting  of  such  traditions  we  should  profess,  that  the 
doctrine  contained  in  the  holy  scriptures  is  unperfect  or 
insufficient  to  salvation. 


Martin.     Somewhat  more  excusable  it  is,  but  yet  proceeding  of  the  Martin,  6. 
same  heretical  humour,  and  on  your  part  (that  should  exactly  follow  the 
Greek)  falsely  translated,  when  you  translate  in  St  Peter's  epistle  thus  : 
"  You  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things  from  your  vain  con-  i  Pet.  i.  is. 
versation  received  by  the  tradition  of  the  fathers."    Where  the  Greek  is  t»c  ■t)7s  ixa- 
thus  rather  to  be  translated,  "from  your  vain  conversation  delivered  by  T"'-"  . 
the  fathers."    But  your  fingers  itched  to  foist  in  the  word  "tradition,"  o-rpot^f/s 
and  for  "delivered"  to  say  "received,"  because  it  is  the  phrase  of  the  '^"■JP"'^"-- 


catholic  church,  that  it  hath  "  received  "  many  things  "  by  tradition," 
which  you  would  here  controul  by  likeness  of  words  in  this  false  trans- 

Fulke.  I  marvel  why  you  should  count  it  an  heretical  Fulke,  0. 
humour,  to  use  the  word  "traditions"  in  the  evil  part,  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  so  useth,  and  your  own  vulgar  translator 
also ;  but  that  you  are  more  partial  in  allowing  the  tra- 
ditions of  men,  than  we  in  avoiding  the  term  sometimes, 
only  for  doubt  lest  traditions  of  men  should  creep  into  the 
place  of  God's  commandments.  But  how  is  it  falsely  trans- 
lated on  our  part,  that  profess  to  follow  the  Greek,  which 
is  truly  translated  in  your  vulgar  Latin  text,  which  pro- 
fesseth  to  translate  the  Greek  as  well  as  we?  Belike,  be- 
cause we  say,  "received  by  the  tradition  of  the  fathers,"  which 
according  to  the  Greek  should  be,  "  delivered  by  the  fathers," 
but  that  our  fingers  itched  to  foist  in  the  word  "  tradition." 
What,  I  pray  you,  hath  your  vulgar  translator  foisted  in 
that  word?  did  liis  fingers  itch  against  such  catholic  phrases, 
that  he  would  controul  them  by  a  false  translation  ?  Do  you 
not  perceive  that  wMle  you  rail  upon  us,  you  revile  your 
own  vulgar  Latin  translation,  wliich  hath  the  same  word 
"  tradition,"  for  wliich  you  storm  against  us  ?  But  for  de- 
livered, we  have  said,  received.  See  whither  frowardness 
di'iveth  you  :  the  apostle  saith,  "  they  were  dehvered  from 
the  vain  conversation  of  their  fathers'  tradition."  Do  you 
then  understand,  that  it  was  delivered  by  the  fathers,  but 
not  received  by  their  sons?  Certainly  they  were  dehvered 
from  that  vain  conversation  which  they  had  received.  For 
receiving  doth  necessarily  import  dehvering.  And  because 
you  called  for  a  lexicon  in  the  next  section  before,  Scapula 
will  teach  you,  that  iraTpowapa^oTo^  doth  signify  as  in- 
differently a  patre  traditus  as  a  patre  acceptus,  "  dehvered 
by  the  father,"  and  "  received  by  the  father."  What  wranghng 
then  is  this,    about   the   moon-shine   in    the   water,   to   cry 

174  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

out  "false  translation,"  "foisting,"  "itching  fingers,"  and  I 
know  not  what? 

Martin,  7.        Martin.    But  concerning  the  word  "tradition,"  you  will  say  perhaps 
the  sense  thereof  is  included  in  the  Greek  word,  "delivered."     We 
grant.    But  would  you  be  content,  if  we  should  always  expressly  add, 
Tradidi  "  tradition,"  where  it  is  so  included  1   Then  should  we  say,  1  Cor.  xi.  2, 

'jrat>touiKa.  «  j  pj,jjjgg  yQ^  ^}^q^  ^g  J  have  delivered  you  (by  tradition),  you  keep 
my  precepts,"  or  "  traditions."  And  again,  v.  23  :  "  For  I  received  of 
our  Lord,  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,"  (by  tradition,)  &c.  And 
Luke  i.  2:  "As  they  (by  tradition)  delivered  unto  us,  which  from 
the  beginning  saw,"  &c.,  and  such  like,  by  your  example,  we  should 
translate  in  this  sort.  But  we  use  not  this  licentious  manner  in  trans- 
lating holy  scriptures ;  neither  is  it  a  translator's  part,  but  an  inter- 
preter's, and  his  that  maketh  a  commentary ;  neither  doth  a  good  cause 
need  other  translation  than  the  express  text  of  the  scripture  giveth. 

FuLKE,  7.  Fulke.  We  will  say  it  is  contained  in  the  Greek  woi'd 
waTpoirapa^oTou,  which  signifieth  "received  hy  tradition  or 
delivery  from  the  fathers,"  and  not  in  the  verb  Trapa^iSwfxi, 
wliich  signifieth  otherwise  many  times,  than  simply  "to  de- 
Hver ;"  and  when  it  signifieth  "  to  dehver,"  it  doth  not  alway 
signify  to  dehver  by  word  of  mouth,  without  writing,  as 
you  understand  tradition,  but  as  well  by  writing,  as  by 
preacliing.  As  when  St  Paul  saith,  "  I  received  of  the  Lord 
that  which  I  delivered  unto  you,"  speaking  of  the  institution 
of  the  supper,  he  meaneth  that  which  the  evangelists  had 
written,  and  he  himself  doth  write.  So  2  Thess.  ii.,  when 
he  willeth  them  to  hold  the  traditions  which  they  had 
learned  of  liim,  he  speaketh  not  only  of  such  as  they  learned 
by  his  preaching,  but  such  also  as  they  learned  by  his 
epistle.  Wherefore  if  you  should  expressly  add  the  word 
"tradition"  in  yom'  partial  signification,  wheresoever  you  find 
the  word  delivered,  you  should  not  only  translate  ridiculously, 
but  also  heretically  and  falsely.  Words  in  derivation  and 
composition  do  not  always  signify  according  to  their  pri- 

JMartin,  8,  Martin.  And  if  you  will  yet  say,  that  our  vulgar  Latin  translation 
hath  here  the  word,  "  tradition,"  we  grant  it  hath  so,  and  therefore  we 
also  translate  accordingly.  But  you  profess  to  translate  the  Greek,  and 
not  the  vulgar  Latin,  which  you  in  England  condemn  as  papistical,  and 
say  it  is  the  worst  of  all,  though  Bcza,  your  master,  pronounce  it  to  be 

11.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  175 

the  very  best";  and  will  you,  notwithstanding,  follow  the  said  vulgar  Discover  of 
Latin,  rather  than  the  Greek,  to  make  ti-aditions  odious  ?    Yea,  such  is  pag.  147.  ' 
your  partiality  one  way,  and  inconstancy  another  way,  that  for  your  Nwum  Test, 
heretical  purpose  you  are  content  to  follow  the  old  Latin  translation,  ^^^' 
though  it  differ  from  the  Greek ;  and  again,  another  time  you  will  not 
follow  it,  though  it  be  all  one  with  the  Greek  most  exactly ;  as  in  the 
place  before  alleged,  where  the  vulgar  Latin  translation  hath  nothing  of 
traditions,  but,  "  Quid  decernitis,"  as  it  is  in  the  Greek,  you  translate, 
"  Why  are  ye  burdened  with  traditions  1"  Coi.  ii.  20. 

Fulke.  You  may  be  sure  we  will  say  that  we  know  Fulke,  8. 
to  be  true,  and  sufficient  to  discharge  oui'  translation  from 
your  foohsh  and  malicious  quarrelhng.  But  we  profess  (you 
say)  to  translate  the  Greek,  and  not  the  vulgar  Latin.  And, 
I  pray  you,  what  doth  your  vulgar  Latin  interpreter  pro- 
fess to  translate,  but  the  Greek  ?  If  he  then,  translating  out  of 
Greek,  could  find  "tradition"  in  the  Greek  word,  why  should 
not  we  find  the  same,  especially  being  admonished  by  liim  ? 
who  if  he  translated  truly,  why  are  we  blamed  for  doing 

P  Beza's  opinion  was  not  quite  what  Martin  has  here  represented 
it.  In  the  preface  alluded  to,  he  says  as  follows:  "Vulgata"  illius 
editionis,  qua  jampridem  utimur,  quis  auctor  fuerit,  video  inter  doctos 
homines  non  constare.  Hoc  quidem  constat,  prseterquam  quod  pluri- 
mis  locis  a  librariis  est  depravata,  saepe  illam  a  Graecis  discedere,  ssepe 
obscure  multa  interpretari,  quaedam  praetermittere,  quaedam  adjicere; 
ut  minime  mu-um  sit,  eruditis  hominibus  nunquam  satisfecisse,  impe- 
ritis  autem  multis  magnos  errores  objecisse.  Eruditos  voco,  non  eos 
duntaxat  qui  praecipue  hoc  nomine  digni  sunt,  quales  sane  perpauci 
semper  extiterunt;  sed  eos  quoque  qui  vel  mediocrem  utriusque  lin- 
guae peritiam  ad  pietatis  cognitionem  attulerunt.  Ceteros  autem,  quod 
ad  id  attinet  de  quo  agimus,  nihil  moror;  quorum  tamen  duo  genera 
esse  video :  unum  eorum  qui  per  imperitiam,  quod  pleraque  errata 
non  modo  non  intelligunt,  sed  ne  suspicari  quidem  possunt,  idcirco  in 
recepta  ilia  intei"pretatione  acquiescunt ;  qui  tamen  proculdubio  meliora 
amplecterentur,  siquis  ilia  commonstraret :  alterum  eorum  qui,  perverso 
quodam  ingenio  et  ignobUi  natura  praediti,  ita  in  crassis  illis  et  ob- 
scuris  teuebris  versantur,  ut  veritatis  lucem  sponte  refugiant.  lUi  com- 
miseratione  sane  aliqua  digni  sunt:  isti  vero  plane  indigni  quorum 
corruptis  et  depravatis  judiciis  quisquam  commoveatur ;  quinimo 
aperti  sunt  veritatis  hostes;  mirus  enim  est  inter  mendacium  et  i<mo- 

rantiam,  qua  isti  tantopere  delectantur,  consensus Quum  io-itur 

in  ilia  Vulgata  editione  (quam  tamen  ego  maxima  ex  parte  amplector, 
et  ceteris  omnibus  antepono)  permulta  requirantur,  laudandus  est 
profecto  eorum  labor  qui  illam  emendare  studuerunt.  Praefatio  in 
Nov.  Test.  edit.  Bezae,  1556.] 

176  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

as  he  did  ?  if  his  translation  be  false,  why  is  it  allowed 
as  the  only  authentical  text  ?  We  follow  not,  therefore,  the 
Latin  translation,  but  join  with  it  wheresoever  it  followeth 
the  Greek,  as  we  do  in  ten  thousand  places  more  than 
this  ;  and  willingly  depart  not  from  it,  but  where  it  de- 
parteth  from  the  Greek,  or  else  useth  such  words  as  would 
be  offensive,  if  they  were  translated  into  Enghsh,  or  occa- 
sion of  error ;  as  you  do  likewise,  when  you  depart  from 
the  proper  and  usual  signification  of  words,  which  your 
Latin  translator  useth :  as  when  you  call  fcenerator,  "a  cre- 
ditor," which  signifieth  an  usurer,  Luke  vii. ;  stabulum,  "  an 
inn,"  and  stabularius,  "an  host,"  Luke  x.;  una  sahhati,  "the 
first  of  the  sabbath,"  Johnii. ;  ecclesia,  "the  assembly,"  Acts 
vii.;   6ap^iVmato,  "washings,"  Mark  vii.,  and  such  like. 

But  we  in  England  (say  you)  condemn  the  Latin  trans- 
lation, as  papistical.  We  accuse  it  as  not  true  in  many  places, 
and  we  say  it  is  the  worst  of  all,  though  Beza,  our  master, 
pronounce  it  to  be  the  very  best.  This  toucheth  me  some- 
what; for  in  the  margm  is  noted  "Discovery  of  the  Rock, 
p.  147."  where,  indeed,  speaking  of  the  Hebrew  text  of  the 
Old  Testament,  and  the  Greek  of  the  New,  the  Greek  trans- 
lation of  the  Septuagmt,  and  the  common  Latin  translation,  I 
say  the  Tridentine  Council  alloweth  none  for  authentical,  but 
the  common  Latin  translation,  that  is  the  worst  of  all.  Now 
what  saith  Beza  contrary  to  this  ?  Speaking  of  the  divers 
Latin  translations  of  the  New  Testament  only,  he  saith  of 
the  vulgar  Latin,  that  he  followeth  it  for  the  most  part, 
and  preferreth  it  before  all  the  rest :  maxima  ex  parte  am,- 
plector,  et  cete^^is  omnibus  antepono.  So  that  I  speak  of 
the  whole  Bible,  Beza  of  the  New  Testament  only  :  I  speak 
of  the  vulgar  Latin  text,  in  comparison  of  the  original  He- 
brew and  Greek,  and  the  Septuagint's  translation ;  Beza, 
of  the  Latin  translation  of  the  New  Testament,  in  comparison 
of  all  other  Latin  translations,  that  were  before  him,  as 
Erasmus,  Castalio,  and  such  like.  According  to  your  old 
manner  therefore,  you  rehearse  out  of  my  writings,  either 
falsifying  the  words,  or  perverting  the  meaning.  These 
things  considered,  you  have  no  cause  to  accuse  us  of  par- 
tiality and  inconstancy,  for  .following  or  leaving  your  Latin 
text,  wliich  we  never  did  but  upon  good  ground  and  reason 


Martin.     So  that  a  blind  man  may  see  you  frame  your  translations  Martin,  9. 
to  bolster  your   errors  and  heresies,  without  all  respect  of  following 
sincerely  either  the  Greek  or  the  Latin.     But  for  the  Latin  no  marvel  ; 
the  Greek  at  the  least  why  do  you  not  follow  ?     Is  it  the  Greek  that 
induceth  you  to   say  ordinances  for  traditions,  traditions  for  decrees,  "^apa- 
ordinances  for  justifications,  elder  for  priest,  grave  for  hell,  image  for  s^yua'-ra. 
idol?   Tell  us  before  God,  and  in  your  conscience,  whether  it  be  because  SiKutui- 
you  will  exactly  follow  the  Greek  :  nay,  tell  us  truly,  and  shame  the  !^"g"«^. 
devil,  whether  the  Greek  words  do  not  sound  and  signify  most  properly  -repo's. 
that  which  you  of  purpose  will  not  translate,  for  disadvantaging  your  ".?,''^l 
heresies  ?    And  first,  let  us  see  concerning  the  question  of  images. 

Fulke.  A  blind  man  may  see,  that  you  cavil  and  slan-  Fulke,  9. 
der,  quarrel  and  rail,  without  respect  either  of  conscience 
towards  God,  or  honesty  toward  the  world  :  insomuch,  that 
most  commonly  you  forget  the  credit  of  your  own  vulgar 
Latin  translation,  so  you  may  have  a  colour  to  find  fault 
with  ours.  And  yet  again  you  ask,  whether  it  be  the  Greek 
which  induceth  us  to  say,  for  irapaooaei'i  ordinances,  and 
for  Soyfxara  traditions,  &c.  I  tell  you,  the  Greek  alloweth 
us  so  to  say,  wliich  is  sufficient,  when  other  godly  causes 
move  us   beside  so   to   translate.     Is  it  the  Latin  that  in-  Fanerator. 


duceth  you  to  say,  for  'an  usurer,'  '  a  creditor;    for  'a  stable,'  ^""fy^*^'"""' 
'an  inn;'  for  'what  was  done,'  'what  was  chanced^;'  for  ' fas- ;^^^sentes, 
tening  to,'  'crucifying";'  for  'be  you  saved,'  'save  yom'selves^;'  Act?ii!'"'' 
for  'creature,'  'creation;'  for  'confessed,'  'promised*;'  for  'aA^tfyn"^' 
boat,'  'a  ship;'  for 'a  ship,'  'a  boat ;'  for 'singing,'  'piping^;' Lukl'"".*^' 

Q^  Acts  v.  7.  I^ot  ?7  yvvi)  avTov  firj  eiSvIa  to  yeyovos  etarjXdev. 
"  Et  uxor  ipsius,  nesciens  quod  factum  fuerat,"  Vulg.  "  And  his 
wife  not  knowing  what  was  chaunced,"  Rhemish  version.] 

P  Acts  ii,  23.  Sta  ;^etpa)i/  avojiav  npoa-Tni^avTes  dveiXere.  "Per 
manus  iniquorum  affligentes  interemistis,"  Vulg.  "  You  by  the  hands 
of  wicked  men  have  crucified  and  slain,"  Rhemish  version.  "Have 
crucified  and  slain,"  Versions  1534,  1539,  1557,  1611.] 

[I**  Acts  ii.  40.  ^codrjTe  dno  rfjs  yeveas  ttjs  (TKoXias  ravrq's.  "  Sal- 
vamini  a  generatione  ista  prava,"  Vulg.  "Save  yourselves  from  this 
perverse  generation,"  Rhemish  version.] 

[^  Acts  vii.  17.  Kada>s  8e  rjyyiC^v  6  xpo^os  rijs  e-n-ayyfXlas  ^s  c!>ixo(T(v 
6  eeoff  Tw  A^padji.  "Cum  autem  appropinquaret  tempus  promis- 
sionis,  quam  confessus  erat  Deus  Abrahae,"  Vulg.  "And  when  the 
time  drew  near  of  the  promise  which  God  had  promised  to  Abra- 
ham, &c."  Rhemish  translation.] 

Q®  Matt.  xi.  17.  HvX-qa-afiev  vfjuv,  Koi  ovk  dpxwacrde.  "Cecinimus 
vobis,  et  non  saltastis,"  Vulg.  "We  have  piped  to  you,  and  you 
have  not  danced,"  Rhemish  version.] 

r  1  12 





Alark  iv. 
Matt.  xi. 
Matt.  xiv. 
Mark  xiv. 
Luke  vi. 

for  'hay,'  'grass';'  for  'refection,'  'refectory^;'  for  'foolish- 
ness,' 'madness^;'  for  'an  image,'  'an  idol,'  &c.  ?  I  blame 
not  all  these  as  false  translations;  yet  every  man  may  see 
they  are  neither  usual  nor  proper  :  yet  as  for  some  of  these 
(though  not  for  all)  I  know  you  may  give  good  reason,  so 
may  we,  for  any  shew  of  alteration  or  departing  from  the 
usual  signification  of  the  Greek  word,  that  you  are  able  to 
allege  against  us. 

P  Matt.  xiv.  19.  'AvaK\i6iivai  eVl  roiis  x^P'rovs.  '•^  Discumbere  su- 
per foenum,"  Vulg.  "  To  sit  down  upon  the  grass,"  Rhemish 

[^  Mark  xiv.  14.  Hoi)  eWi  t6  KaraXvfia;  "Ubi  est  refeetio  mea?" 
Vulg.     "  Where  is  my  refectory  1"  Rhemish  version.] 

[**  Luke  vi.  11.  'EnXriadrja-av  dvoias.  "Repleti  sunt  insipientia," 
Vulg.    "  And  they  were  replenished  with  madness,"  Rhemish  version.] 



Heretical  Translation  ag-ainst  Sacred  Imao-es. 

Martin.   I  beseech  you,  what  is  the  next  and  readiest  and  most  proper  Martin,  1. 
English    of   idolum,    idololatra,   idololatria  ?   is  it  not,    "  idol,   idolater,  e'iowXov. 
idolatry"?     Are  not  these  plain  English  words,  and  well  known  in  our  '^'""''^O'^"- 
language?  Why  sought  you  further  for  other  temis  and  Avords,  if  you  had  eiowXoXa. 
meant  faithfully  ?      What  needed  that  circumstance  of  three  words  for '^z'^'"- 
one,  "  worshipper  of  images,"  and  "  worshipping  of  images'* "  ?  Whether,  Bib.  1577. 
I  pray  you,  is  the  more  natural  and  convenient  speech,  either  in  our 
English  tongue,  or  for  the  truth  of  the  thing,  to  say,  as  the  holy  scripture 
doth,  "  covetousness  is  idolatry,"  and  consequently,  "  the  covetous  man  Eph.  v. 
is  an  idolater ;"  or,  as  you  translate,  "  covetousness  is  worshipping  of   ° ' ""' 
images,"  and,  "  the  covetous  man  is  a  worshipper  of  images  "1 

Fulke.  If  you  ask  for  the  readiest  and  most  proper  Fulke,  1. 
English  of  these  words,  I  must  needs  answer  you,  '  an  image, 
a  worshipper  of  images,  and  worshippmg  of  images,'  as  we 
have  sometimes  translated.  The  other  that  you  would  have, 
'  idol,  idolater,  and  idolatry,'  be  rather  Greeldsh  than  EngUsh 
words;  which  though  they  be  used  of  many  Enghshmen, 
yet  are  they  not  understood  of  all,  as  the  other  be.  And 
therefore  I  say,  the  more  natural  and  convenient  speech 
for  our  Enghsli  tongue,  and  as  convenient  for  the  truth  of 
the  thing,  it  is  to  say,  '  covetousness  is  the  worsliipping  of 
images,  and  the  covetous  man  is  a  worshipper  of  images,' 
as  to  say,  'covetousness  is  idolatry,  and  the  covetous  man 
is  an  idolater,'  as  I  have  proved  before ;  seeing  idolum  by 
your  own  interpreter  is  called  simulacrum,  and  simula- 
crum signifieth  as  much  as  imago,  an  image,  cap.  i.  numb.  5. 

Martin.    We  say  commonly  in  English,  Such  a  rich  man  maketh  Martin,  2. 
his  money  his  god;   and  the  apostle  saith  in   like  manner  of  some,  Theabsur- 
"  whose  belly  is  their  god,"  Phil.  iii. ;   and  generally  eveiy  creature  is  translation, 
our  idol,  when  we  esteem  it  so  exceedingly  that  we  make  it  our  god.  man  is  a  wor- 
But  who  ever  heard  in  English,  that  our  money,  or  belly,  were  ourimTge?." 

[*  The  versions  of  1534  and  1539  render  ^Vt?  ia-riv  elBaXoXarpela, 
Col.  iii.  5,  "  Which  is  worshipping  of  images."  The  Geneva  transla- 
tion has,  like  the  Authorised  version  of  1611,  "Which  is  idolatry." 
The  Vulgate  has,  "  Qu^  est  simulacronim  servitus."] 

12 2 

180  A     DEl'KNCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

images,  and  that  by  esteeming  of  them  too  much  we  become  worshippers 
of  images  ?  Among  yourselves  are  there  not  some  even  of  your  super- 
intendents, of  whom  the  apostle  speaketh,  that  make  an  idol  of  their 
money  and  belly,  by  covetousness  and  belly  cheer  ?  Yet  can  we  not  call 
you  therefore  in  any  true  sense,  '"'  worshippers  of  images,"  neither  would 
you  abide  it.  You  see  then,  that  there  is  a  great  difference  betwixt  idol 
and  image,  idolatry  and  worshipping  of  images ;  and  even  so  great 
difference  is  there  betwixt  St  Paul's  words  and  your  translation. 

FuLKE,  2.  Fulke.  Before  you  can  shew  that  absurdity  of  this 
translation,  '  a  covetous  man  is  a  worshipper  of  images,'  you 
must  defend  your  own  vulgar  Latin  translation,  which  calleth 
el^coXoXarpeia  simulacrorum  servitus,  which  I  have  proved  to 
signify  the  serving  or  worshipping  of  images,  cap.  i.  numb.  5. 
Now  to  our  English  phrase,  '  a  rich  man  maketh  his  money 
his  god,  a  glutton  his  belly,'  and  so  of  other  creatures 
honoured  above  measure ;  I  say,  the  worshipping  of  images 
may  be  after  two  sorts,  either  when  they  are  worshipped  as 
gods,  (as  among  the  grosser  sort  of  the  gentiles  and  papists,) 
and  then  it  is  against  the  first  commandment,  "Thou  shalt 
have  none  other  gods  but  me";  or  else  Avlien  men  pretend  to 
worship  God  by  them,  as  the  Israehtes  did  in  the  calf, 
Exod.  xxxii.,  and  in  Jeroboam's  calves,  and  in  the  brasen 
serpent,  and  the  wiser  sort  of  the  gentiles  and  papists  pretend 
to  do  in  worsliipping  their  images  ;  and  then  it  is  a  sin 
against  the  second  commandment,  "Thou  shalt  make  to  thy- 
self no  graven  images :  thou  shalt  not  fall  down  to  them, 
nor  worship  them."  By  similitude  therefore  of  them  that 
trusted  in  images  as  their  gods,  and  so  honoured  them  which 
were  not  able  to  help  them,  the  apostle  calleth  the  covetous 
man  a  worshipper  of  images,  and  covetousness,  worshipping  of 
images  ;  and  not  properly,  but  because  their  money  is  to 
them  the  same  occasion  of  departing  from  God,  that  the 
images  was  to  the  worshipper  of  them.  So  if  we  will  speak 
unproperly,  as  the  apostle  saith,  "  their  belly  is  their  God,"  we 
may  say  it  is  their  idol,  or  their  image,  which  they  worship 
as  God  :  not  that  the  belly,  or  any  such  thing,  is  God,  or  an 
idol,  or  an  image  properly  ;  but  that  it  is  so  termed,  for  that 
to  such  vile  creatures  is  given  that  divine  honour  which  is  due 
to  God,  but  by  worshippers  of  idols  and  images  is  given  to 
idols  or  images.  I  confess  the  use  of  the  English  tongue,  in 
these  speeches,  is  rather  to  call  them  idols  than  images,  and 


to  extend  the  name  idol  (which  is  always  taken  in  the  evil 
part)  to  that  which  the  word  image  cannot  so  aptly  signify  : 
yet  in  truth  of  the  thing  there  is  no  difference  between  idol 
and  image,  worshipping  of  idols,  and  worshipping  of  images, 
whether  you  speak  of  such  as  be  idols  and  images,  so  properly 
called,  or  of  such  as  be  only  by  simiHtude  figuratively  so 
named.  If  any  of  our  superintendents  be  such  as  you  speak 
of,  I  wish  them  amended,  or  else  removed.  For  my  part,  I 
know  none  to  be  such,  although  I  wish  to  the  best  increase  of 
God's  grace,  to  despise  the  world,  and  to  be  more  earnest  in 
setting  forth  God's  glory.  As  for  the  great  difference  you 
speak  of  betwixt  St  Paul's  words  and  our  translation,  I  see 
none  as  yet. 

Martin.    Will  you  see  more  yet  to  this  purpose?     In  the  English  Ma nnv, 3. 
bible,  printed  the  year  1562,  you  read  thus  :  "  How  agreeth  the  temple  2  Cor.  vi. 
of  God  with  images^  V   Can  we  be  ignorant  of  Satan's  cogitations  herein, 
that  it  was  translated  of  purpose  to  delude  the  simple  people,  and  to 
make  them  believe  that  the  apostle  speaketh  against  sacred  images  in 
the  churches,  which  were  then  in  plucking  down  in  England,  when  this 
your  translation  was  first  published  in  print  ?     Whereas  in  very  truth 
you  know,  that  the  apostle  here  partly  interpreteth  himself  to  speak  of 
men  as  of  God's  temples  wherein  he  dwelleth,  partly  alludeth  to  Salo- 
mon's temple,  which  did  very  well  agree  -vAith  images  (for  it  had  the  Salomon's 
cherubins,  which  were  the  representations  of  angels,  and  the  figures  of  wen'agrVe 
oxen  to  bear  up  the  lavatory),  but  with  idols  it  could  not  agree,  and  but' n^^wSi 
therefore  the  apostle's  words  are  these,  "  How  agreeth  the  temple  of  God  "'°'^" 
with  idols  V 

Fulke.  We  had  need  to  see  more,  before  we  be  con-  Fulke,  8. 
victed  of  corruption  ;  for  hitherto  we  have  seen  nothing  but  a 
fooUsh  cavil,  grounded  upon  the  common  use  of  the  word  "idol" 
in  English,  in  which  speech  it  is  taken  only  for  unlawful 
images,  although  in  the  Greek  it  signifieth  as  generally  as 
imago  in  Latin,  and  by  Tully  himself  is  used  for  the  same. 
But  in  the  Enghsh  bible,  printed  1562,  we  read  thus, 
2  Cor.  vi.,  "  How  agreeth  the  temple  of  God  with  images''^  ?" 
Here  you  cannot  be  "  ignorant  of  Satan's  cogitations,  that  it 

P  Tt's  be  (TvyKaTciQecns  va^  Beou  fxera  elhdikav ;  2  Cor.  vi.  16. 
"What  agreement  hath  the  temple  of  God  with  idols?"  Rhemish, 
Authorised  version.] 

P  It  is  "images"  in  the  Bibles  of  1584,  1589,  1557,  but  "idols" 
in  the  Authorised  version,  1611.] 

182  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  fcH. 

was  translated  of  purpose  to  make  the  simple  people  believe, 
that  the  apostle  speaketh  against  sacred  images  in  chm'ches, 
which  were  then  in  plucking  down  in  England,  when  this 
translation  was  first  pubhshed  in  prmt."  You  are  so  cunning 
in  Satan's  cogitations,  that  he  hath  inspired  mto  you  a  mani- 
fest untruth  ;  for  this  text  was  so  translated  and  printed  near 
tliirty  years  before  1562,  in  king  Henry  the  Vlllth's  time, 
when  images  were  not  in  plucking  down.  And  when  it  was 
printed  again,  1562,  which  was  the  fifth  year  of  her  majesty's 
reign  (God  be  thanked ! )  there  was  no  need  to  pluck  down 
images  out  of  churches,  which  were  plucked  down  in  the  first 
and  second  years  of  her  reign.  AVherefore  that  purpose  is 
vainly  imagined  of  you  :  for  the  translator's  purpose  was  the 
same  that  the  apostle's,  to  shew  that  the  religion  of  God 
hath  nothing  to  do  with  images  made  by  man's  device  to 
honour  them  as  gods,  or  to  honour  God  by  them.  And 
where  you  say  that  the  apostle  "  alludeth  to  Salomon's  temple, 
which  did  well  agree  with  images,  but  not  with  idols  ;"  I 
answer  you,  Salomon's  temple  cUd  not  agree  with  images 
made  by  the  device  of  man,  to  honour  God  by  them  or  in 
them.  For  the  cherubins  were  not  of  man's  device,  but  of 
God's  commandment :  the  oxen  to  hold  up  the  lavatory,  the 
pomegranates,  and  other  ornaments,  were  not  for  any  use  of 
religion  to  worship  God  in  them  or  by  them,  but  for  use  and 
garnishing  of  the  house  appointed  by  God  in  his  law,  and  by 
direction  of  his  Spirit  in  Salomon.  For  the  commandment, 
"Thou  shalt  not  make  to  thyself,"  is  no  restraint  unto  God,  but 
unto  men  of  their  own  brain  or  private  intent  to  make  images 
to  serve  in  i-ehgion.  Therefore  the  apostle,  speaking  of  such 
images  as  were  forbidden  by  God's  law,  is  not  otherwise  to  be 
understood  ;  and  no  more  is  our  translation. 

]\Iahtin,  4.        Martin.      When   Moses    by   God's   appointment    erected  a   brasen 

/xfT-a  rSiv     serpent,   and  commanded  the  people  that  were  stung-  with  serpents  to 

Thebraseti     t)ehold  it,  and  thereby  they  were  healed  ;  this  was  an  image  only,  and  as 

an?magi^'^*'  an  image  was  it  erected  and  kept  and   used  by  God's  commandment. 

and  lawful:    But  when  it  grew  to  be  an  idol,  saith  St  Augustine,  that  is,  when  the 
afterward  an  °  '  o  ■>  j 

idol,  and       people  began  to  adore  it  as  God,  then  king  Ezechias  brake  it  in  pieces,  to 

unlawiul.         x       x  tj  '  o  i.  ^ 

Numb.  xxi.    the  great   commendation  of  his  piety  and  godly  zeal.      So  when  the 

Civil,  e.  8.      children  of  Israel,  in  the  absence  of,  made  a  calf,  and  said,  "  These 

Exod.°xxxii.  ^re  thy  gods,  O  Israel,  that  brought  thee  out  of  Egypt,"  was  it  but  an 

image  which  they  made  ?  was  that  so  heinous  a  matter,  that  God  would 


SO  have  punished  them  as  he  did  ?    No,  they  made  it  an  idol  also,  saying,  The  molten 
" These  are  thy  gods,  O  Israel ;"  and  therefore  the  apostle  saith  to  the  i^con ".' 
Corinthians,  "Be  not  idolaters,  as  some  of  them  ;"  which  also  you  trans-  f'0""\oA.«- 

'  "  Tpai, 

late  most  falsely,  "  Be  not  worsliippers  of  images,  as  some  of  them." 

Fulke.  The  brasen  serpent  first  and  last  was  an  image,  Fulke,  4. 
holy  when  it  was  commanded  by  God  to  be  made  as  a  sacra- 
ment of  our  redemption  by  Clirist,  lawful  when  it  was  reserved 
only  for  memory  of  that  excellent  miracle ;  unlawful,  cursed, 
and  abominable,  when  it  was  worshipped,  and  therefore  justly 
broken  in  pieces  by  the  godly  king  Ezechias.  You  cite  Au- 
gustine as  it  pleaseth  you,  to  follow  your  own  context : 
Quern  sane  serpentem,  projiter  facti  memoriam  reservatum, 
cum  postea  j^opuliis  errans  tanquam  idolum  colere  ccepisset, 
Ezechias,  &c.  "Which  serpent  truly,  being  reserved  for  the 
memory  of  the  fact,  when  afterward  the  people  going  astray 
began  to  worship  as  an  idol,  Ezechias  the  king,  serving  God 
with  rehgious  power,  with  great  praise  of  his  piety  brake  in 
pieces."  Here  it  is  certain  that  Augustine,  as  most  ecclesias- 
tical writers,  useth  the  word  idolum  for  an  image  abused. 
But  that  the  people  began  to  adore  it  as  God,  he  saith  not ; 
for  they  only  worshipped  God  by  it,  falsely  indeed  and  super- 
stitiously,  but  yet  not  believing  that  image  to  be  God  him- 
self, but  a  holy  representation  of  his  power,  which  was  shewed  » 
by  it  in  the  days  of  Moses.  That  Ezechias,  by  rehgious  or 
ecclesiastical  power  and  authority,  did  put  down  idolatry,  you 
pass  it  by,  as  though  you  saw  it  not  in  St  Augustine.  But 
you  bring  another  example  to  prove  that  images,  except  they 
be  worsliipped  as  gods,  be  no  idols.  In  truth,  seeing  all 
rehgious  worship  is  due  only  to  God,  although  the  idolaters 
intend  not  to  worship  then*  images  as  gods,  yet  by  worsliip- 
ping  of  them  they  make  unto  themselves  gods  of  them,  and 
so  offend  both  against  the  first  and  second  commandments. 
Yet  how  prove  you  that  the  Israelites  made  a  god  of  their 
calf  ?  Because  they  said,  "  These  are  thy  gods,  0  Israel, 
that  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  But  even  by 
that  same  speech  it  is  manifest  that  they  worshipped  not  the 
calf,  as  believing  it  to  be  God;  but  contrariwise  protested 
thereby,  that  they  meant  not  to  change  their  God,  but  to 
worship  the  same  God,  which  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt,  by  that  image  ;  which  they  could  not  be  ignorant  that 
it  was  made  but  yesterday  of  their  ear-rings,  and  therefore 

184  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

could  not  think  it  was  the  same  God  that  brought  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  but  that  they  would  worship  God  by  that 
visible  shape,  which  they  saw  before  them.  And  Aaron  by 
his  proclamation  confirmeth  the  same :  "  To-morrow,"  saith 
he,  "  shall  be  holy  day  to  Jehovah,"  that  is,  to  the  only  true 
God,  whom  they  dishonoured,  pretending  to  worship  him  by 
that  image  :  so  heinous  a  thing  it  is  to  make  images  to  repre- 
sent God,  and  to  worship  them  for  his  honour,  although  the 
worshipper  do  not  behove  them  to  be  gods.  Therefore  where 
we  have  in  some  translations,  1  Cor.  x.,  called  those  idolaters 
worsliippers  of  images,  we  have  not  erred ;  for  an  image  it 
was  they  worshipped,  thinliing  to  worship  God  thereby. 
But  if  either  image  or  idol,  worsliippers  of  images  or  idolaters, 
would  please  you,  we  have  both  in  our  translations,  the  one 
expressing  what  Ave  mean  by  the  other  ;  that  these  cavillations 
were  needless,  but  that  malice  against  the  truth  incenseth  you 
to  pick  quarrels,  and  that  translation  which  useth  the  terms  of 
idols  and  idolaters,  was  then  in  printing  at  Geneva,  when 
images  were  in  pulling  down  in  England,  namely,  the  first  and 
second  years  of  the  queen's  reign,  being  finished  the  10th  of 
April,  1560 ;  which  notably  confuteth  the  fond  purpose,  that 
you  slander  our  translators  to  have  had. 

Martin,  5.       Martin.    We  see  then  that  the  Jews  had  images  without  sin,  but 

not  idols.    Again,  for  having  idols  they  were  accounted  like  unto  the 

Psai.  cvi.       gentiles,  as  the  Psalm  saith  :   "  They  learned  their  works,  and  served 

their  graven  idols."    But  they  were  not  accounted  like  unto  the  gentiles 

for  having  images,    which  they  had  in  Salomon's  temple,  and  in  the 

In  cap.  XXV.   l)rasen  serpent.     St  Jerome  writeth  of  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites 

The  protest-    (who  were  gentiles  and  idolaters),  that  coming  into  the  temple  of  Jeru- 

to  the  Am-''   salem,  and  seeing  the  angelical  images  of  the  cherubins  covering  the 

Moabites™     propitiatory,  they  said,  "  Lo,  even  as  the  gentiles,  so  Juda  also  hath  idols 

of  their  religion."     These  men  did  put  no  difference  between  their  own 

idols  and  the  Jews'  lawful  images.    And  are  not  you  ashamed  to  be  like 

to  these  ?     They  accused  Salomon's  temple  of  idols,  because  they  saw 

there  lawful  images :  you  accuse  the  churches  of  God  of  idolatry,  because 

you  see  there  the  sacred  images  of  Christ  and  his  saints. 

FuLKE,  5.  Fulke.  We  know  that  the  Jews  had  images  without 
sin,  and  so  have  we ;  but  to  have  images  in  any  use  of 
rehgion  without  God's  express  commandment,  neither  is  it 
lawful  for  them  nor  us,  because  Ave  have  a  general  com- 
mandment to  the  contrary.  They  were  accounted  like  the 
gentiles  therefore,  for  having  images  contrary  to  God's  com- 



mandment,  of  their  own  appointment,  and  worshipping  them ; 
not  for  having  images  appointed  by  God,  wliich  yet  it  was 
not  lawful  for  them  to  worship.  But  the  Protestants,  you 
say,  are  like  to  the  Ammonites  and  Moabites,  of  whom  St  in  Ezech. 
Jerome  writeth',  that  commg  into  the  temple,  and  seemg 
the  cherubins  covering  the  propitiatory,  they  said,  "Lo,  even 
as  the  gentiles,  so  Juda  also  hath  idols  of  their  reUgion," 
as  we  accuse  the  church  of  God  of  idolatry,  because  we  see 
there  the  sacred  images  of  Christ  and  his  saints. 

This  that  you  say  St  Jerome  writeth,  he  only  reporteth 
it  as  a  ridiculous  fable  of  the  Jews :  Ridiculam  vero  in 
Jioc  loco  Hehrcei  narrant  fabulam.  "  The  Hebrews  in  this 
place  tell  a  ridiculous  fable."  But  fables  are  good  enough 
to  bolster  false  accusations.  Secondly,  he  reporteth  them 
to  say  :  Sicut  cunctm  gentes  colunt  shnulacra,  ita  et  Juda 
habet  suce  religionis  idola.  "  As  all  nations  worship  images, 
so  hath  Juda  also  idols  of  their  religion."  By  wliich  words 
you  see,  that  he  calleth  images  and  idols  the  same  things. 
For  simidacrmn  to  be  taken  as  largely  as  imago,  I  have 
proved  before,  insomuch  that  man  is  called  simidacrum  Dei, 
"the  image,"  not  the  idol,  "of  God,"  as  idol  is  taken  in  the 
evil  part.  But  neither  are  you  like  to  Juda,  nor  we  to 
Ammon  and  Moab,  in  this  case.  For  Juda  had  God's  com- 
mandment to  warrant  their  images  ;  so  have  not  you,  but 
his  commandment  against  your  images.  Again,  Moab  and 
Ammon  (if  the  tale  were  true)  had  idolatrous  images  of 
their  own ;  so  have  not  we. 

Martin.     But  tell   us   yet,  I  pray  you,   do  the  holy   scriptures  of  Martin,  6. 

either  Testament  speak  of  all  manner  of  images,  or  rather  of  the  idols  of 

the  gentiles  1     Your  conscience  knoweth  that  they  speak  directly  against  The  holy 

the  idols  and  the  idolatry  that  was  among  the  pagans  and  infidels ;  from  speTketh 

the  which  as  the  Jews  in  the  Old  Testament,  so  the  first  Christians  in  flXoVtife 

the  New  Testament,  were  to  be  prohibited.   But  will  you  have  a  demon-  ^'^"[^^'f  aij"' 

stration  that  your  own  conscience  condemneth  you  herein,  and  that  vou  manner  of 

^  '  t!        images. 

apply  all  translation  to  your  heresy  ?    What  caused  you,  being  otherwise 

\}  Ridiculam  vero  in  hoc  loco  Hebrsei  narrant  fabulam.  Postquam 
urbs  apcrta,  templumque  reseratum  est,  filiique  Ammon  et  Moab  et 
Seir  ingressi  sunt  templum,  videruntque  Cherubim  protegentia  pro- 
pitiatorium,  dixerunt:  Sicut  cunctse  gentes  colunt  simulacra,  ita 
et  Juda  habet  suse  religionis  idola.  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Ezech. 
cap.  XXV.  V.  8.    Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  870.] 

186  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH.' 

in  all  places  so  ready  to  translate  "images,"  yet  Esai.  xxxi.  and  Zachar. 
xiii.  to  translate  "  idols"  in  all  your  bibles  with  full  consent  ?  Why  in 
these  places  specially  and  so  advisedly  ?  No  doubt,  because  God  saith 
there,  speaking  of  this  time  of  the  New  Testament,  "  In  that  day  every 
man  shall  cast  out  his  idols  of  silver  and  idols  of  gold :"  and,  "  I  will 
destroy  the  names  of  the  idols  out  of  the  earth,  so  that  they  shall  no 
more  be  had  in  remembrance."  In  which  places  if  you  had  translated 
"  images,"  you  had  made  the  prophecy  false  ;  because  images  have  not 
been  destroyed  out  of  the  world,  but  are  and  have  been  in  christian 
countries  with  honour  and  reverence  even  since  Christ's  time.  Marry,  in 
the  idols  of  the  gentiles  we  see  it  verified,  which  are  destroyed  in  all 
the  world,  so  far  as  gentility  is  converted  to  Christ. 

FuLKE,  6.  Fulke.  Verily  the  commandment  of  God,  being  a  com- 
mandment of  the  first  table,  unto  which  whatsoever  is  said 
in  the  scriptures  of  images,  or  the  worship  of  them  forbidden, 
must  be  referred,  speaketh  generally  of  all  manner  of  images 
made  by  the  device  of  man  for  any  use  of  religion,  whether 
they  be  of  Jews,  pagans,  or  false  Christians.  But  we  are 
offered  a  demonstration,  that  our  own  conscience  condemneth  us 
herein,  and  that  we  apply  all  translations  to  our  heresy.  And 
that  is  this  :  in  Esai.  xxxi.  and  Zachar.  xiii.  with  one  con- 
sent all  translate  "  idols,"  because  God  speaketh  of  the  time 
of  the  New  Testament,  where  if  they  had  translated  "images," 
they  "  had  made  the  prophecy  false,  because  images  in  chris- 
tian countries  are  with  honour,  but  idols  of  the  gentiles  are 
destroyed  out  of  the  world  so  far  as  gentility  is  converted 
to  Christ."  A  goodly  demonstration,  I  promise  you !  That 
the  translators  had  no  such  respect,  it  is  plain;  for  that- 
they  do  not  understand  the  xxxi.  of  Esaias  of  the  time  of 
Christ,  but  of  the  reformation  made  by  Ezechias.  But 
in  Esai.  xhv.,  which  is  a  manifest  prophecy  of  the  church  of 
Christ,  they  all  use  the  word  "image;"  also  Micheas  the  v. 
and  in  divers  other  places,  where  the  destruction  of  idolatry 
is  prophesied  by  the  religion  of  Christ,  which  is  verified 
only  in  true  Christians  ;  for  otherwise  both  idolatry  of  pagans 
and  of  false  Christians  hath  remained  in  many  places,  and 
yet  remaineth  to  this  day. 

]\Iartin,7.  Martin.  And  what  were  the  pagan  idols  or  their  idolatry?  St  Paul 
Rom.  i.  telleth  us,  saying :  "  They  changed  the  glory  of  the  incorruptible  God 
the  iiiois  of  into  the  similitude  of  tlie  image  of  a  con-uptible  man,  and  of  birds  and 
t  e  agans.  -^^^r^^^^^  g^j^jj  creeping  things,  and  tliey  served  (or  worshipped)  the  creature 
more  than  the  Creator."     Doth  he  charge  them  for  making  the  image  of 


man  or  beast  ?  Yourselves  have  hanging's  and  cloths  full  of  such  pauit- 
ings  and  embroidermgs  of  imagery.  Wherewith  then  are  they  charged  ? 
"With  giving  the  glory  of  God  to  such  creatures,  which  was  to  make  them 
idols,  and  themselves  idolaters. 

Fulke.  That  the  pagans  changed  the  glory  of  God  Fulke,  7. 
into  the  siniihtude  of  the  image  of  man,  &c.  it  was  the 
extremity  of  their  madness ;  but  that  they  made  images  of 
man  or  beast,  if  you  will  not  confess  that  Jupiter,  Mars,  &c. 
were  men,  and  Isis  a  cow  or  beast,  yet  remember  that  they  made 
images  of  their  emperors,  and  committed  idolatry  to  them : 
otherwise,  to  make  images  out  of  relio-ion  was  not  the  offence 
of  idolatry  in  them  nor  us,  that  have  them  in  hangmgs, 
and  paintings,  and  other  lawful  images. 

Martin.  The  case  being  thus,  why  do  you  make  it  two  distinct  things  Martin,  8. 
in  St  Paul,  calling  the  pagans  "  idolaters,"  and  the  Christians  doing  the  i  Cor.  v. 

'       .  f  „  °  Bib.  1502. 

same  "  worshippers  of  images,'   and  that  in  one  sentence,  whereas  the 
apostle  useth  but  one  and  the  selfsame  Greek  word  in  speaking  both  of 
pagans  and  Christians  ?     It  is  a  marvellous  and  wilful  corruption,  and 
well  to  be  marked ;  and  therefore  I  will  put  down  the  whole  sentence 
as  in  your  English  translation :  "  I  wrote  to  you  that  you  should  not 
company  Avith  fornicators;  and  I  meant  not  at  all  of  the  fornicators  of  this 
world,  either  of  the  covetous,  or  extortioners,  either  the  idolaters,  &c.,  elSwXoXd. 
but  that  ye  company  not  together,  if  any  that  is  called  a  brother  be  a  "^1°""- 
fornicator,  or  covetous,  or  a  worshipper  of  images,  or  an  extortioner." 
In  the  first,  speaking  of  pagans,  your  translator  nameth  "idolater"  ac- 
cording to  the  text ;  but  in  the  latter  part,  speaking  of  Christians,  you 
translate  the  very  selfsame  Gi-eek  word  "  worshipper  of  images."     Why  elScoXoXd- 
so  ?    Forsooth,  to  make  tlie  reader  think  that  St  Paul  speaketh  here  not  '^i°''** 
only  of  pagan  idolaters,  but  also  of  catholic  Christians  that  reverently 
kneel  in  prayer  before  the  cross,  the  holy  rood,  the  images  of  our  Saviour 
Christ  and  his  saints,  as  though  the  apostle  had  commanded  such  to 
be  avoided. 

Fulhe.  The  reason  is,  because  we  count  idolaters  and  Fulke,  8. 
worshippers  of  images  to  be  all  one.  But  "it  is  a  marvellous 
wilful  corruption,"  that  in  one  sentence,  1  Cor.  \.,  we  call 
the  pagans  idolaters,  and  the  Christians  worsliippers  of  images, 
and  yet  the  same  Greek  word  in  both.  If  tliis  were  a 
fault,  it  were  but  of  one  translation  of  the  three,  for  the 
Geneva  Bible  hath  "idolater"  in  both,  the  other  "worshipper 
of  idols"  in  the  latter  place.  And  we  think  the  latter  to 
be  understood  of  idolatrous  papists,  which  worship  idols  made 
with  hands  of  men,  as  crosses,  roods,  and  other  images,  to 

188  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

as  great  dishonour  of  God  and  danger  of  their  souls  as 
pagans  did.  So  that  if  it  had  been  "worshippers  of  images" 
in  both,  the  translation  had  not  been  amiss. 

Martin,  9.  Martin.  Where  if  you  have  yet  the  face  to  deny  this  your  mahcious 
and  heretical  intent,  tell  us  why  all  these  other  words  are  translated  and 
repeated  alike  in  both  places,  "  covetous,"  "  fornicators,"  "  extortioners," 
both  i^agans  and  Christians,  and  only  this  word  "  idolaters  "  not  so,  but 
pagans  "  idolaters,"  and  Christians  "  worshippers  of  images."  At  the  least 
you  cannot  deny  but  it  was  of  purpose  done  to  make  both  seem  all  one, 
yea,  and  to  signify  that  the  Christians  doing  the  foresaid  reverence  before 
sacred  images  (which  you  call  worshipping  of  images)  are  more  to  be 
avoided  than  the  pagan  idolaters :  whereas  the  apostle,  speaking  of 
pagans  and  Christians  that  committed  one  and  the  selfsame  heinous  sin 
whatsoever,  commandeth  the  Christian  in  that  case  to  be  avoided  for  his 
amendment,  leaving  the  pagan  to  himself  and  to  God,  as  having  not  to  do 
to  judge  of  him. 

FuLKE,  9.  Fulke.  I  think  the  cause  was,  that  Christians  might 
understand  who  was  an  idolater,  and  what  the  word  "idolater" 
signifieth,  which  was  used  in  the  former  part  of  the  sentence. 
And  if  the  translator's  purpose  was  by  this  exphcation  to 
dissuade  the  readers  from  worshipping  of  popish  images,  I 
see  not  what  cause  he  hath  to  be  ashamed  thereof,  seeing 
the  Greek  word  signifieth  as  much  as  he  saith :  not  as 
though  idols  were  proper  only  to  the  gentiles,  and  images 
to  Christians;  for  in  other  places  he  useth  the  name  of  images, 
speaking  both  of  the  pagans  and  the  Christians,  1  Cor,  viii. 
Although  for  my  part,  I  could  wish  he  had  used  one  word 
in  both  places,  and  either  called  them  both  idolaters  or 
both  worshippers  of  images. 

Martin,  Martin.    But  to  this  the  answer  belike  will  be  made,  as  one  of  them 

.•  hath  already  answered  in  the  like  case,  that  in  the  English  bible  ap- 

Confuiat.'of   pointed  to  be  read  in  their  churches  it  is  otherwise,  and  even  as  we 

let,™oi.  35."  would  have  it  corrected  ;  "  and  therefore,"  saith  he,  "  it  had  been  good 
before  we  entered  into  such  heinous  accusations,  to  have  examined  our 
grounds  that  they  had  been  true."  As  though  we  accuse  them  not  truly 
of  false  translation,  unless  it  be  false  in  that  one  bible  which  for  the 
present  is  read  in  their  churches  ;  or  as  though  it  pertained  not  to  them 
how  their  other  English  bibles  be  translated ;  or  as  though  the  people 
read  not  all  indifferently  without  prohibition,  and  may  be  abused  by 
every  one  of  them ;  or  as  though  the  bible  which  now  is  read  (as  we 

Bib.  1577.  think)  in  their  churches,  have  not  the  like  absurd  translations,  yea, 
o  .  111.  5.      jjjQj.g  ai^gurd,  even  in  this  matter  of  images,  as  is  before  declared  ;  or  as 


though  we  must  first  learn  what  English  translation  is  read  in  their 
cliurch  (which  were  hard  to  know,  it  changeth  so  oft),  before  we  may  be 
bold  to  accuse  them  of  false  translation ;  or  as  though  it  were  not  the 
same  bible  that  was  for  many  years  read  in  their  churches,  and  is  yet  in 
every  man's  hands,  which  hath  this  absurd  translation  whereof  we  have 
last  spoken. 

Fidke.  Mine  answer  was  framed  to  Howlet's  reason,  Fulke, 
who  would  prove  that  our  service  was  naught,  because  the  ^^' 
scriptures  were  therein  read  in  false  and  shameless  transla- 
tions, example  of  which  he  bringeth,  1  John  v.:  "  Children, 
keep  yourselves  from  images,"  To  whom  mine  answer  was 
apt,  when  I  said,  "In  the  Bible  appointed  to  be  read  in  the 
service  it  is  otherwise,"  and  as  ho  himself  saith  it  ought  to 
be ;  which  answer  as  though  it  were  made  to  the  general 
accusation  of  our  translations,  you  with  many  supposings,  as 
though  this,  as  though  that,  would  make  it  seem  to  be  un- 
sufficient;  whereas,  to  Howlet's  cavil,  it  was  not  only  sufficient, 
but  also  proper.  And  therefore  tliis  is  a  vain  supposal,  "as  > 
though  we  accuse  them  not  truly  of  false  translation,  unless 
it  be  false  in  that  one  bible  which  for  the  present  is  read 
in  their  church."  For  we  grant  you  not  the  other  to  be 
false,  because  this  is  true,  and  so  are  all  the  rest.  "As  though 
it  pertained  not  to  them  how  their  other  Enghsh  bibles  be 
translated."  It  pertaineth  so  far  that,  if  there  were  a  fault 
in  the  former,  we  have  amended  it  in  the  latter.  But  in 
that  text,  for  which  I  answered,  I  acknowledge  yet  no  fault, 
neither  is  that  mine  only  answer ;  for  I  prove  that  "image" 
and  "idol"  with  the  apostle  signifieth  the  same  tiling.  "Or  as 
though  the  people  read  not  all  without  proliibition,  and  may 
be  abused  by  every  one  of  them."  There  is  no  such  false 
translation  in  any  of  them,  that  the  people  can  be  abused 
thereby  to  run  into  heresy.  Yet  again  :  "Or  as  though  the 
bible,  wliich  now  is  read  (as  we  think),  have  not  the  like 
absurd  translations,  yea,  more  absurd,  even  in  this  matter 
of  images,  as  is  declared  before."  As  though  you  have  proved 
whatsoever  you  prate  of.  Once  again  :  "  Or  as  though  we 
must  first  learn,  what  Enghsh  translation  is  read  in  their 
church  (which  were  hard  to  know,  it  changeth  so  often), 
before  we  may  be  bold  to  accuse  them  of  false  translation." 
If  you  will  accuse  that  translation  which  is  read  in  our 
ehurch,  as  Howlet  doth,  reason  would  you  should  first  learn 

190  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

which  it  is;  and  that  is  no  hard  matter,  seeing  there  was 
never  more  appointed  than  two,  as  oft  as  you  say  we  change. 
"Or,  (at  last,)  as  though  it  were  not  the  same  bible,  that  was 
for  many  years  read  in  their  churches,  and  is  yet  in  every 
man's  hands,  which  hath  tliis  absurd  translation,  whereof 
we  last  spake."  As  though  I  could  prophesy,  when  I  an- 
swered Howlet  for  the  bible  appointed  to  be  read  in  the 
church,  in  1  John  v.,  that  you  would  find  fault  with  an- 
other text  in  that  translation,  that  sometime  was  read  in 
the  church,  and  yet  is  in  many  men's  hands :  which, 
although  it  be  well  altered  in  that  point,  which  you  quarrel 
at,  in  the  two  later  translations,  yet  I  see  no  absurdity  in 
the  first,  which  for  one  Greek  word  giveth  two  English 
words,  both  of  one  signification,  yea,  and  the  latter  being 
plainer,  exphcating  the  former,  which  to  English  ears  is 
more  obscure  and  less  understood. 

Martin,  Martin.   Surely  the  bible  that  we  most  accuse,  not  only  in  this  point, 

^^*  but  for  sundry  other  most  gross  faults  and  heretical  translations,  spoken 

Bib.  1562.  of  in  other  places,  is  that  bible  which  was  authorised  by  Crannier,  their 
archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  read  all  king  Edward's  time  in  their 
churches,  and  (as  it  secmeth  by  the  late  printing  thereof  again,  anno 
15li2)  a  great  part  of  this  queen's  reign.  And  certain  it  is,  that  it  was 
so  long  read  in  all  their  churches  with  this  venomous  and  corrupt  trans- 
lation of  "images"  always  instead  of  "  idols,"  that  it  made  the  deceived 
people  of  their  sect  to  despise,  contemn,  and  abandon  the  very  sign  and 
image  of  their  salvation,  the  cross  of  Christ,  the  holy  rood,  or  crucifix, 
representing  the  manner  of  his  bitter  passion  and  death,  the  sacred 
images  of  the  blessed  virgin  Mary,  the  mother  of  God,  and  of  St  John 
John  xix.  26.  Evangelist,  representing  their  standing  by  the  cross  at  the  very  time  of 
his  passion.  Insomuch  that  now  by  experience  we  see  the  foul  incon- 
venience thereof,  to  wit,  that  all  other  images  and  pictures  of  infamous 
harlots  and  heretics,  of  heathen  tyrants  and  persecutors,  are  lawful  in 
England  at  this  day,  and  their  houses,  parlours,  and  chambers,  are 
garnished  with  them;  only  sacred  images,  and  representations  of  the 
holy  mystery  of  our  redemption,  are  esteemed  idolatrous,  and  have  been 
openly  defaced  in  most  spiteful  manner,  and  burned,  to  the  great  dis- 
honour of  our  Saviour  Christ  and  his  saints. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     That  bible  perhaps  you  misHke  more  than  the 

^^'  other   translations,    because   archbishop    Cranmer  allowed  it 

by  his  authority.      But  howsoever  it  be,  (as  I  think  there  be 

more  imperfections  in  it  than  in  the  other,)  it  is  not  your 

accusation,  without  due  and  substantial  proof,  that  can  make 

in.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  191 

it  less  esteemed  with  any  indifferent  or  wise  man.  If  it 
have  caused  the  people  to  contemn  and  abandon  all  popish 
idols,  there  is  cause  that  we  should  give  God  thanks  for  it. 
Albeit  not  the  translation  only,  but  preaching  of  the  gospel, 
and  Christ  crucified  especially,  by  which  Christ  hath  been 
truly  and  Uvely  painted  forth  unto  them,  and  even  crucified 
among  them,  hath  made  them  contemn,  yea,  and  abhor  all 
carnal  and  human  devices  of  the  image  of  our  salvation, 
or  representation  of  his  passion  by  vain  and  dead  images, 
to  be  any  helps  of  faith,  rehgion,  or  the  worship  of  God. 
Where  you  say  it  is  "seen  by  experience,  that  all  other  images 
of  infamous  harlots  and  heretics,  of  heathen  tyrants  and 
persecutors,  are  lawful  in  England,  to  garnish  houses,  when 
sacred  images  are  esteemed  idolatrous,  defaced,  and  burned," 
I  know  not  well  your  meaning.  For  if  you  have  any  true 
images  of  the  patriarchs,  prophets,  apostles,  or  other  holy 
persons,  I  think  they  be  as  lawful  to  garnish  private  houses 
as  the  other  you  speak  of.  Yea,  the  stories  of  the  whole 
bible  painted,  both  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  are 
not  forbidden,  but  in  many  places  used :  provided  always,  that 
in  the  places  appointed  for  the  public  service  of  God  such  things 
are  not  lawful,  for  danger  of  idolatry,  nor  in  private  places  to 
to  be  abused,  as  they  are  of  papists  ;  but  rather,  though  they 
were  as  ancient  and  as  goodly  monuments  as  the  brasen 
serpent  was,  which  no  images  at  this  day  can  be,  it  is  to  the 
great  honour  of  God  that  they  should  be  despised,  defaced, 
burned,  and  stamped  to  powder,  as  that  was,  which  sometime 
was  erected  by  the  commandment  of  God,  by  which  not  only 
great  miracles  were  wrought,  but  the  wonderful  mystery  of 
our  salvation  through  faith  in  Christ  was  prefigured. 

Martin.    And  as  concerning  the  bible  that  at  this  day  is  read  in  their  Martin, 
churches,  if  it  be  that  of  the  year  1577,  it  is  worse  sometime  in  this  ^'^• 
matter  of  images  than  the  other.     For  where  the  other  readeth  "  covet-  Coi.  iii.  5. 
ousness,  which  is  worshipping  of  idols,"  there  this  latter  (whereunto 
they  appeal)   readeth   thus:    " covetousness,  which  is  worshipping  of 
images."    And  Ephes.  v.  it  readeth  as    absurdly  as    the   other :    "  A  w.  Fuike, 
covetous  man,  which  is  a  worshipper  of  images'."    Lo,  this  is  the  En-  S!"^"'' '°'' 

P  "Covetousness,  which  is  worshipping  of  images,"  edit.  1568. 
"Covetousness,  which  is  idolatry,"  1579.  Col.  iii.  5.  "A  covetous  per- 
son, which  is  a  worshipper  of  images,"  Ephes.  v.  5.  edit.  1568.  "Nor 
covetous  person,  which  is  an  idolater,"  edit.  1579.] 

192  A    DEFEXCE    OF    THE    EXGLISH  [cH. 

Foi.  3n.  glish  bible,  which  they  refer  us  unto,  as  better  translated  and  as  correcting 
the  fault  of  the  former.  But  because  it  is  evident  by  these  places,  that 
this  also  is  partly  worse  and  partly  as  ill  as  the  other,  therefore  this 
great  confuter  of  master  John  Howlet  fleeth  once  more  to  the  Geneva 
English  bible,  saying,  "  Thus  we  read,"  and,  "  so  we  translate ;"  to  wit, 
*'  A  covetous  person,  which  is  an  idolater."  Where  shall  we  have  these 
good  fellows,  and  how  shall  we  be  sure  that  they  will  stand  to  any  of 
their  translations  ?  From  the  first  read  in  their  churches  they  flee  to 
that  that  is  now  read,  and  from  this  again  to  the  later  Geneva  English 
bibles,  neither  read  in  their  churches  (as  we  suppose,)  nor  of  greatest 
authority  among  them  ;  and  we  doubt  not  but  they  will  as  fast  flee  from 
this  to  the  former  again,  when  this  shall  be  proved  in  some  places  more 
false  and  absurd  than  the  other. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     It  pleaseth  you  worse,  perhaps,  that  less  favour- 

eth  your  pelting  distinction  of  images  and  idols;  but  it  is  never 
the  worse  to  be  liked  of  them  that  be  wise  and  learned, 
which  know  that  e'lKwv  and  eilwkov  in  Greek  do  signify 
the  same  thing,  which  you  cannot  deny.  And  where  you 
say,  in  your  scornful  mood,  "  Lo,  this  is  the  bible,  which 
they  refer  us  unto,  as  better  translated  and  as  correcting 
the  fault  of  the  former,"  you  follow  your  accustomed  vein  of 
lying.  For  I  acknowledge  no  fault  of  the  former  in  this 
point  of  images,  but  confute  the  frowardness  of  that  foohsh 
reason,  which  accuseth  our  service  of  reading  the  bible  in 
.  shameless  translations,  in  that  text,  1  John  v. ;  whereas  in 
the  bible  appointed  for  the  service  it  is  not  as  he  saith, 
but  even  as  he  would  have  us  to  say.  I  fly  not  therefore 
(as  it  pleaseth  your  wisdom  to  say)  from  that  translation 
also  to  the  Geneva  bible,  neither  do  I  allege  the  Geneva 
translation  for  that  cause  you  pretend,  but  to  shew,  that 
albeit  we  translate  in  such  words  as  you  cannot  mislike, 
yet  your  venomous  slandering  pens  and  tongues  can  never 
give  over  your  peevish  quarrelling.  In  the  place  by  you 
quoted,  I  defend  both  as  true,  and  answerable  to  the  Greek, 
and  of  one  sense  and  meaning,  where  the  sound  of  words 
only  is  diverse,  the  signification  of  matter  one  and  the  same. 
And  yet  you  must  have  your  foolish  flourish  in  rope-ripe 
terms:  "Where  shall  we  have  these  good  fellows,"  &c.?  You 
shall  have  us,  by  the  grace  of  God,  ready  to  justify  all 
our  translation  from  shameless  falsification  and  heretical 
corruptions,  which  is  your  impudent  charge  against  us.     And 


if  ill  matter  of  lesser  moment  you  can  descry  the  least 
error  in  any  or  in  all  of  our  translations,  we  shall  be 
willing  to  confess  the  same,  and  ready  to  reform  it.  For 
truth  is  dearer  to  us  than  credit ;  although  we  think  it 
better  credit  to  reform  a  fault,  than,  being  admonished, 
wUfully  to  continue  it  or  defend  it. 

Martin.     But  what  matter  is  it  how  thev  read  in  their  churches,  or  Martin, 

'  13 

how  they  correct  their  former  translations  by  the  later ;  when  the  old 

corruption  remaineth  still,  being  set  of  purpose  in  the  top  of  every 
door  within  their  churches,  in  these  words :  "  Babes,  keep  yourselves  i  John  v. 
from  images*"?  Wliy  remaineth  that  Avritten  so  often  and  so  con- 
spicuously in  the  walls  of  their  churches,  which  in  their  bibles  they 
correct  as  a  fault  1  Their  later  bibles  say,  "  Keep  yourselves  from  idols  :" 
their  church  walls  say,  "  Keep  yourselves  from  images."  St  John, 
speaking  to  the  lately-converted  gentiles,  biddeth  them  beware  of  the 
idols  from  whence  they  were  converted :  they,  speaking  to  the  old- 
instructed  Christians,  bid  them  beware  of  the  sacred  image  of  Christ 
our  Saviour,  of  the  holy  crucifix,  of  the  cross,  of  every  such  represen- 
tation and  monument  of  Christ's  passion  and  our  redemption.  And 
therefore  in  the  very  same  place  where  these  holy  monuments  were 
wont  to  stand  in  catholic  times,  to  wit,  in  the  rood-loft  and  partition 
of  the  church  and  chancel,  there  now  stands  these  words  as  confronting 
and  condemning  the  foresaid  holy  monuments  :  "  Babes,  keep  yourselves 
from  images."  Wliich  words  whosoever  esteemeth  as  the  words  of 
scripture,  and  the  words  of  St  John,  spoken  against  Christ's  image, 
is  made  a  very  babe  indeed,  and  sottishly  abused  by  tlieir  scribbled 
doors  and  false  translations,  to  count  that  idolatry,  which  is  indeed  to 
no  other  purpose,  than  to  the  great  honour  of  him  whose  image  and 
picture  it  is. 

Fulke.  Still  you  harp  on  the  old  untuneable  string,  Fulke, 
that  the  former  is  a  corruption,  which  saitli,  "  Babes,  keep  ^''^• 
yom^selves  from  images ;"  wliich  sentence  sore  grieveth  you, 
to  be  wi'itten  in  the  top  of  chm'ch  doors,  or  in  place  where 
the  rood-loft  stood.  And  you  ask  why  it  remaineth  on 
the  walls,  which  we  correct  as  a  fault  in  the  bibles  ?  But 
who  told  you  that  they  correct  it  as  a  fault  in  the  bibles? 
Is  every  alteration  with  you  a  correction?  The  one  ex- 
phcateth  the  other,  that  idols  of  wliich  St  John  speaketh 
be  images  abused  in  religion.  Not  that  all  images  be  idols, 
(as  the  word  idol  in  the  English  speech  is  taken,)  nor  that 
all  idols  be  images,  but  as  images  that  are  worshipped.     But 

r*  TfKvi'a,    (fivKa^are   eavrovs   airo   tS>v   el8(oXa>u.     1  John  v.  21.'] 

194  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

St  John  (you  say),  speaking  to  the  converted  gentiles,  bid- 
deth  them  beware  of  the  idols,  from  whence  they  were 
converted.  That  is  true,  but  not  only  from  them,  but  from 
all  other  idols.  Except  perhaps  you  think,  that  Christians 
by  that  text  should  not  abhor  the  images  of  Simon  Magus, 
and  Selene,  and  the  images  of  the  Valentinians,  and  Gnosticks, 
and  other  hereticks,  which  worshipped  the  image  of  Christ 
irenaus,  lib.  and  of  St  Paul,  as  Irenaeus^  and  Epiphanius^  do  testify.     And 

1.  cap.  20.        .  .  .  „ 

23,24.         it  seemeth,  you  so  think  m  deed.     For  you  say  soon  after, 

Epiphanius,        .^_^  ''  t'  i/  ' 

II  h' 2^°"""  "Whosoever  esteemeth  those  words  as  the  words  of  scripture 
(if  images  be  put  for  idols,)  spoken  against  Christ's  image, 
is  made  a  very  babe."  Such  babes  were  Irenaeus  and  Epipha- 
nius,  that  they  condemned  tliis  worshipping  of  images  for 
heresy.  Such  a  babe  was  Epiphanius,  that  finding  the  image 
of  Christ  painted  in  vail  hangmg  in  a  church  at  Anablatha, 
he  judged  it  to  be  contrary  to  the  scriptures,  and  rent  it 
in  pieces.  Such  a  babe  was  Tertullian^,  that,  speaking  of 
that  very  text  of  St  John,  "  Little  cliildren,  keep  yourselves 
from  idols,"  he  writeth  :  Non  jmn  ah  idololatria  quasi  ah 
officio,  sed  ah  idolis,  id  est,  ah  ipsa  effigie  eorum.  Indignum 
enim  ut  imago  Dei  vivi  imago  idoli  et  Tnortui  fiat.  "  He 
biddeth  them  take  heed,  not  now  from  idolatry,  as  from 
the  service,  but  from  the  idols  themselves,  that  is  to  say, 
from  the  very  images  or  shapes  of  them.  For  it  is  un- 
worthy that  the  image  of  the  living  God  should  be  made 
the  image  of  an  idol,  and  that  being  dead.""  Finally,  such 
a  babe  was  your  vulgar  translator,  that  he  saith :    Filioli, 

\}  Contemnere  autem  et  idolothyta,  et  nihil  arbitrari,  sed  sine 
aliqua  trepidatione  uti  eis:  habere  autem  et  reliquarum  operationum 
usum  indifFerentem,  et  universae  libidinis.  Utuntur  autem  et  hi  ma- 
gia,  et  imaginibus,  et  incantoribus,  et  invocationibus,  et  reliqua  uni- 
versa  periergia:  nomina  quoque  qusedam  affingentes  quasi  angelorum, 
annuntiant  hos  quidem  esse  in  primo  coelo,  hos  autem  in  secundo;  et 
deinceps  nituntur  CCCLXV.  ementitorum  coelorum  et  nomina,  et  prin- 
cipia,  et  angelos,  et  virtutes  exponere.  Irenaei,  Lib.  i.  cap.  23.  Opera, 
p.  102.  edit.  Venet.  1734.] 

r^  Ti  Se  aKKo  rj  Tvavav  app-qrovpylav  Kai  ttjv  ddefiirop  Trpa^cv  rjv  ov 
OejiiTov  eVi  (TTopLaros  (pepeiv,  ovtoi  TrpdrTovcn ;  Koi  irav  ei8os  av8po- 
/Sacriwj/,  Koi  XayvicrTepoiP  6p,i\iav  npos  yvvaiKas  iv  eKacrra  fiepei  croofia- 
Tos,  p.ay€ias  re  <cai  (fiapfxaKfias  Koi  eiScoXoXarpei'aj  eKTeXovvra.  Epiphan. 
adv.  Haer.  Lib.  i.  Tom.  ii.  27.     Opera,  p.  105.  edit.  Paris.  1622.] 

P  De  Corona,  edit,  de  la  Cerda.  p.  678.] 

lir.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  195 

custodite  vos  a  simulacris,  wliich  is  all  one,  as  if  he  should 
have  said  ah  imaginibus,  (as  I  have  plentifully  proved,) 
"  Children,  keep  yourselves  from  images."  As  for  the  pur- 
pose you  pretend  to  have  in  honouring  Christ  by  images, 
contrary  to  his  commandment,  is  indeed  nothing  but  dis- 
honouring of  him  and  destruction  of  yourselves. 

Martin.    But  the  gay  confuter  with  whom  I  began,  saith  for  further  Martin, 
answer,  "Admit  that   in  some  of  our   translations    it  be,   'Children,  ^'^• 
keep  yourselves  from  images,'  (for  so  he  would  have  said,  if  it  were  foi'  35_  ^' 
truly  printed)  what  great  crime  of  corruption  is  here  committed?" 
And  when  it  is  said  again,  this  is  the  crime  and  fault  thereof,  that  they 
mean  by  so  translating  to  make  the  simple  believe  that  idols  and  images 
are  all  one,  which  is  absurd  ;  he  replieth,  "  that  it  is  no  more  absurdity, 
than  instead  of  a  Greek  word  to  use  a  Latin  of  the  same  signification." 
And  ui)on  this  position  he  granteth  that,  according  to  the  property  of 
the  Greek  word,  a  man  may  say,   "  God  made  man  according  to  his  Gen.  i. 
idol,"  and  that  generally  idoluni  may  as  tnily  be  translated  an  "  image,"  kutu  t-ijV 
as  Tyrannus,  a  "king,"  (which  is  very  true,  both  being  absurd;)  and '^"^"'^"' 
here  he  cited  many  authors  and  dictionaries  idly,  to  prove  that  idolum  e'lSwXov. 
may  signify  the  same  that  image.  eiKwv. 

Fulke.  But  tliis  scornful  replier,  with  whom  I  have  Fulke, 
to  do,  is  so  accustomed  to  false  and  unlionest  dealing,  that 
he  can  never  report  any  thing  that  I  have  written  truly ,- 
and  as  I  have  written,  but  with  one  forgery  or  another  he 
will  clean  corrupt  and  pervert  my  saying.  As  here  he 
shameth  nothing  to  affii*m,  that  I  grant  that,  according  to 
the  property  of  the  Greek  word,  a  man  may  say,  God  made 
man  according  to  liis  idol.  I  will  report  mine  own  words, 
by  which  every  man  may  perceive  how  honestly  he  dealeth 
with  me : 

"  But  admit  that  in  some  translation  it  be  as  you  say, 
'  Cliildi'en,  keep  yourselves  from  images :'  what  great  crime 
of  corruption  is  here  committed?  You  say,  that  it  is  to 
make  simple  men  beUeve  that  idols  and  images  are  all  one, 
wliich  is  absurd.  Tliis  is  no  more  absurdity,  than  instead 
of  a  Greek  word  to  use  a  Latin  of  the  same  signification. 
But  you  reply,  that  then,  where  Moses  saith  that  God  made 
man  according  to  his  own  image,  we  should  consequently 
say,  that  God  made  man  according  to  his  idol.  I  answer, 
howsoever  the  name  of  idols  in  the  English  tongue,  for  the 
great  dishonour  that  is  done  to  God  in  worshipping  of  images, 


196  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [oH. 

is  become  so  odious  that  no  christian  man  would  say,  that 
God  made  man  according  to  Ms  idol,  no  more  than  a  good 
subject  would  call  his  lawful  prince  '  a  tyrant,'  yet  according 
to  the  Greek  word,  e'lSwXov  may  be  as  truly  translated  an 
image,  as  rvpawos  a  king." 

Here,  if  I  were  disposed  to  give  the  rein  to  affection, 
as  you  do  often,  being  unprovoked  by  me,  were  sufficient 
occasion  offered  to  insult  against  your  falsehood.  But  I 
will  forbear,  and  in  plain  words  tell  you,  that  if  you  be 
so  simple,  that  you  cannot  understand  the  difference  of  these 
two  propositions,  ei^wXou,  wheresoever  it  is  read  in  Greek, 
may  be  truly  translated  "an  image;"  and  this,  wheresoever 
the  word  image  is  used  in  Enghsh,  you  may  use  the  word 
idol;  you  are  mimeet  to  read  a  divinity  lecture  in  England, 
howsoever  you  be  advanced  in  Rhemes,  If  not  of  ignorance, 
but  of  malice,  you  have  perverted  both  my  words  and 
meaning,  let  God  and  all  godly  men  be  judge  between  you 
and  me.  My  words  are  not  obscure  nor  ambiguous,  but 
that  every  child  may  understand  my  meaning  to  be  no  more 
but  this,  that  this  English  word  idol  is  by  use  restrained 
only  to  wicked  images.  The  Greek  word  eiSooXov  signifieth 
generally  all  images,  as  Tvpai>vo<;  did  all  kings,  imtil  kings, 
that  were  so  called,  became  hateful  for  cruelty,  which  caused 
even  the  name  tyrannus  to  be  odious. 

Mahtin,  Martin.    But  I  beseech  you.  Sir,  if  the  dictionaries  tell  you  that 

6t'S&)Xoz/  may,  by  the  original  property  of  the  word,  signify  "  an  image," 
(which  no  man  denieth,)  do  they  tell  you  also,  that  you  may  commonly 
and  ordinarily  translate  it  so,  as  the  common  usual  signification  thereof  1 
or  do  they  tell  you  that  "  image"  and  "  idol"  are  so  all  one,  that  where- 
soever you  find  this  word  "  image,"  you  may  truly  call  it  "  idol "  ?  For 
these  are  the  points  that  you  should  defend  in  your  answer.     For  an 
Rom  viii        example,  do  they  teach  you  to  translate  in  these  places  thus  ?   "  God 
iinagini.        j^g^^^^  predestinated  us  to  be  made  conformable  to  the  idol  of  his  Son." 
1  Cor.  XV.      And  again,   "  As  we  have  borne  the  idol  of  the  earthly  (Adam,)   so 
2Cor.  iii.       let  US  bear  the  idol  of  the  heavenly"  (Christ).    And  again,  "We  are 
transfonned  into  the  same  idol,  even  as  our  Lord's  spirit."     And  again, 
Heb. X.  "The  law  having  a  shadow  of  the  good  things  to  come,  not  the  very 

Col.  i.  idol  of  the  things."    And  again,  "  Christ  who  is  the  idol  of  the  invisible 

God."  Is  this,  I  pray  you,  a  true  translation  ?  Yea,  say  you,  according 
to  the  property  of  the  word :  but  "  because  the  name  of  idols  in  the 
English  tongue,  for  the  great  dishonour  done  to  God  in  worshipping 
of  images,  is  become  odious,  no  christian  man  would  say  so." 

2  Cor.  iv. 


Fulke.  No  man  denieth  (you  say)  that  e'lSwXov  may,  Fulke, 
by  the  original  propriety  of  the  word,  signify  an  image.  ' 
It  is  well,  that  being  convicted  by  all  dictionaries,  old  and 
new,  you  will  at  length  yield  to  the  truth.  But  you  demand, 
whether  the  dictionaries  do  tell  me  that  I  may  commonly 
and  ordinarily  translate  it  so,  as  the  common  usual  signifi- 
cation thereof.  Sir,  I  meddle  only  with  the  translations  of 
the  scripture ;  and  the  dictionaries  tell  me  that  so  it  usually 
signifieth,  and  therefore  so  I  may  translate  in  the  scripture, 
or  any  other  ancient  Greek  writer,  that  useth  the  word 
according  to  the  original  propriety  thereof.  Peradventure 
some  later  Greek  writers,  restraming  it  only  to  wicked  images, 
may  so  use  the  term,  as  the  general  signification  thereof 
will  not  agree  to  the  meaning  in  some  odd  place  or  other. 
But  that  is  no  matter  to  plead  against  our  translation  of 
the  scripture,  when  in  that  time  it  was  written  the  word 
was  indifferent,  to  signify  any  image.  Further  than  this, 
you  ask  of  me,  if  the  dictionaries  do  tell  me,  that  image 
and  idol  are  all  one,  and  wheresoever  I  find  the  word  imago, 
I  may  truly  call  it  idol  ?  JSTo,  forsooth.  Sir,  they  teach 
me  no  such  thing :  neither  do  I  say  that  the  word  image 
and  idol  may  be  confounded ;  but  the  clean  contrary,  if 
your  mastership  had  not  mistaken  me,  because  it  was  not 
your  pleasure  to  take  me  either  according  to  my  words,  or 
according  to  my  meaning.  Why,  Sir,  "  these  are  the  points 
you  should  defend  in  your  answer :  for  an  example,  do 
they  teach  you  to  translate  in  these  places  thus,  'God  hath 
predestinated  us  to  be  made  conformable  to  the  idol  of  liis 
Son'?  and  again,  'We  have  borne  the  idol  of  the  earthly,' 
&:c,"  I  pray  you,  Su',  pardon  me  to  defend  that  I  never 
said  nor  thought :  you  yourself  confess  in  the  end,  that  I 
say,  that  no  christian  man  would  say  so  :  wherefore  when 
you  say  that  I  afiirm,  this  is  a  true  translation  according 
to  the  propriety  of  the  word  ;  can  I  say  less  ?  Then  you 
lie  lilvo  a  popish  hypocrite. 

Martin.     First,  note  how  foolishly  and  unadvisedly  he  speaketh  here,  Martin, 
because  he  would  confound  images  and  idols,  and  make  them  falsely  ^^• 
to  signify  one  thing:  when  he  saith  the  name  of  "idol"  is  become  odious 
in  the  English    tongue   because  of  worshipping  of  images,  he  should 
have  said,  the  dishonour  done  to  God  in  worshipping  idols  made  the 

198  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE   ENGLISH  [CH. 

name  of  idols  odious.  As  in  his  own  example  of  "  tyrant"  and  "  king," 
he  meant  to  tell  us  that  "tyrant"  sometime  was  an  usual  name  for 
every  king ;  and  because  certain  such  tyrants  abused  their  power,  there- 
fore the  name  of  tyrant  became  odious.  For  he  will  not  say,  I  trow, 
that  for  the  fault  of  kings  the  name  of  tyrant  became  odious.  Likewise 
the  Romans  took  away  the  name  of  Manlius  for  the  crime  of  one  Man- 
lius,  not  for  the  crime  of  John  at  Nokes,  or  of  any  other  name.  The 
name  of  Judas  is  so  odious,  that  men  now  commonly  are  not  so  called. 
Why  so  ?  because  he  that  betrayed  Christ  was  called  Judas ;  not  because 
he  was  also  Iscariot.  The  very  name  of  "  ministers"  is  odious  and  con- 
temptible. Why  ?  because  ministers  are  so  lewd,  wicked,  and  unlearned ; 
not  because  some  priests  be  naught.  Even  so  the  name  of  "  idol"  grew 
to  be  odious,  because  of  the  idols  of  the  GentUes,  not  because  of  holy 
images.  For  if  the  reverence  done  by  Christians  to  holy  images  were 
evil,  (as  it  is  not,)  it  should  in  tliis  case  have  made  the  name  of  images 
odious,  and  not  the  name  of  idols.  But,  God  be  thanked !  the  name  of 
images  is  no  odious  name  among  catholic  Christians,  but  only  among 
heretics  and  image-breakers,  such  as  the  second  general  councU  of  Nice 
hath  condemned  therefore  with  the  sentence  of  anathema :  no  rnore  than 
the  cross  is  odious,  which  to  all  good  Christians  is  honourable,  because 
our  Saviour  Christ  died  on  a  cross. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     Nay,    first    note    how   falsely,    and    then    how 

foohshly,  and  yet  how  impudently,  he  continueth  a  slander 
against  me  of  his  own  devising,  that  I  would  confound 
those  Enghsh  words,  "images"  and  "idols."  For  first  he  will 
teach  me  to  speak  EngUsh,  that  where  I  said  the  name  of 
idol  is  become  odious  in  the  Enghsh  tongue,  because  of 
worshippiug  of  images,  I  should  have  said,  "the  dishonour 
done  to  God  in  worshipping  of  idols  made  the  name  of 
idols  odious."  And  what,  I  pray  you,  were  those  idols,  the 
worsliipping  of  which  made  the  name  odious,  but  images? 
May  I  not  be  so  bold,  mider  your  correction,  to  use  the 
general  name  images,  which  you  say  are  not  idols,  until 
they  be  abused  ?  When  the  image  of  Jupiter,  king  of  Crete, 
was  first  made,  and  nothing  else  done  unto  it,  would  you 
call  it  an  image,  or  an  idol  ?  Sure  I  am,  you  called  the 
brasen  serpent  first  an  image,  and  then  an  idol.  Even 
so  I  trust  I  may,  without  offence  of  Enghshmen,  say,  that 
the  abuse  of  images,  called  first  without  note  of  infamy 
ei^wXa,  "  idols,"  made  the  name  of  idols  to  be  odious,  and 
therefore  not  appHed,  but  to  such  abused  images :  and  the 
example  I  brought  of  tyramvus,  which  first  did  signify 
a  king,  is  very  plain  and  like,  but  that  you  are  disposed 


to  play  the  peevish  quarreller.  And  trow  you,  I  will  not 
say,  that  for  the  fault  of  kings  the  name  of  tyrant  became 
odious  ?  Yes,  verily,  I  will  not  spare  to  say,  and  so  I  said 
before,  that  for  the  fault  of  such  cruel  kings,  as  were  called 
tyranni,  though  the  name  itself  first  signified  not  so,  that 
name  of  tyrant  became  odious.  As  for  your  fombhtudes^ 
of  ManHus  and  Judas,  two  proper  names,  compared  with 
image,  and  idol,  king,  and  tyrant,  which  be  common  names, 
I  will  not  vouchsafe  to  answer  them.  But  the  name  of 
"  ministers'"  (you  say)  is  odious,  for  the  faults  of  ministers, 
and  not  for  the  faults  of  priests.  Popish  priests  are  odious 
enough  for  their  own  faults ;  so  that  they  need  not  be 
charged  unjustly  with  the  faults  of  our  evil  ministers :  wliich 
I  would  wish  were  fewer  than  they  be ;  but  I  trust  there 
are  not  so  many  evU  of  them,  as  your  popish  priests  have 
been,  and  are  daily  found  to  be.  And  whosoever  of  our 
ministers  hath  been  found  worst,  I  think  there  may  be 
found,  not  a  priest,  but  a  pope,  of  your  side  as  evU,  or 
worse  than  he.  But  if  reverence  done  by  papists,  (which 
you  call  Christians,)  to  images  had  been  evil,  (say  you,)  it 
should  have  made  the  name  of  images  odious  also.-  No, 
Su%  that  followeth  not,  so  long  as  that  reverence  was  ac- 
counted good  and  lawful;  and  now  that  it  is  found  to  be 
abominable,  the  people  having  the  other  odious  word  of  idols 
in  use,  need  not  abandon  the  name  of  images,  except  they 
had  another  to  signify  lawful  and  good  images.  The  curse 
of  the  idolatrous  Council  of  Nice  the  second,  no  christian 
man  regardeth,  which  knoweth  that  by  God's  own  mouth 
in  the  scriptures  aU  makers  and  worshippers  of  idolatrous 
images  are  accursed. 

Martin .  But  to  omit  this  man's  extraordinary  and  unadvised  speeches.  Ma  rti  n  , 
which  be  too  many  and  too  tedious,  (as  when  he  saith  in  the  same  sentence, 
"  Howsoever  the  name  '  idol '  is  grown  odious  in  the  English  tongue," 
as  though  it  were  not  also  odious  in  the  Latin  and  Greek  tongues,  but 
that  in  Latin  and  Greek  a  man  might  say  according  to  his  fond  opinion, 
fecit  hominem  ad  idolum  suum,  and  so  in  the  other  places,  where  is  irnago,) 
to  omit  these  rash  assertions,  I  say,  and  to  return  to  his  other  words, 
where  he  saith,  that  though  the  original  property  of  the  words  hath 

[^  Danish,  famler,  to  hesitate,  stammer,  falter :  this  word  of  Fulke's 
is  deduced  from  fumble.    Or  is  it  a  misprint  for  similitudes  ?] 

200  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

that  signification,  yet  "no  christian  man  would  say,  that  God  made 
man  according  to  his  idol,  no  more  than  a  good  subject  would  call  his 
lawful  prince  a  tyrant :"  doth  he  not  here  tell  us  that  which  we  would 
have,  to  wit,  that  we  may  not  speak  or  translate  according  to  the  origi- 
nal property  of  the  word,  but  according  to  the  common,  usual,  and 
accustomed  signification  thereof?  As  we  may  not  translate  Phalaris 
tyrannus,  "Phalaris  the  king,"  as  sometime  tyrannus  did  signify,  and 
in  ancient  authors  doth  signify ;  but  "  Phalaris  the  tyrant,"  as  now  this 
word  tyrannus  is  commonly  taken  and  understood  :  even  so  we  may 
Ab  idoiis.  ^ot  uow  translate,  "  My  children,  keep  yourselves  from  images,"  as  the 
diro  Twv  el-  word  may,  and  doth  sometime  signify,  according  to  the  original  pro- 
1  Joh.  V.  perty  thereof;  but  we  must  translate,  "  Keep  yourselves  from  idols," 
according  to  the  common  use  and  signification  of  the  word  in  vulgar 
speech,  and  in  the  holy  scriptures.  Where  the  Greek  word  is  so  noto- 
riously and  usually  peculiar  to  idols,  and  not  unto  images,  that  the  holy 
fathers  of  the  second  Nicene  council  (which  knew  right  well  the  signi- 
fication of  the  Greek  word,  themselves  being  Grecians)  do  pronounce 
anathema  to  all  such  as  interpret  those  places  of  the  holy  scripture, 
that  concern  idols,  of  unages,  or  against  sacred  images,  as  now  these 
Calvinists  do,  not  only  in  their  commentaries  upon  the  holy  scriptures, 
but  even  in  their  translations  of  the  text. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     We  cannot  yet  be  rid  of  this  man's  extraordinary 

^'^-  and  imadvised  surmises,  which  are  too  many   and  tedious; 

as  where  I  say  the  name  idol  is  odious  in  the  EngUsh 
tongue,  he  gathereth,  that  I  mean  it  to  be  odious  only  in 
the  Enghsh  tongue,  and  not  in  the  Latin  and  Greek.  I  have 
shewed  before,  that  m  TuUy's  time  it  was  not  odious  in 
Latin ;  and  it  is  not  long  since  Master  Martin  confessed  the 
Greek  word,  according  to  the  original  propriety,  to  signify  as 
generally  as  e'lKwu,  "  an  image,"  wliich  is  not  odious.  Although 
in  later  times,  among  Christians,  both  of  the  Greek  and  the 
Latin  church,  the  name  of  idolum  became  odious,  as  well 
as  the  word  '  idol'  in  Enghsh.  Therefore  it  is  not  my  fond 
opinion,  but  M.  Martin's  foohsh  collection,  that  a  man  may 
say  in  Latin,  fecit  hominem  ad  idolum  suum :  and  yet  I 
am  charged  with  rash  assertions,  when  nothing  is  reproved 
that  I  affirm,  but  that  which  he  himself  doth  imagine. 

But  now  you  will  retm^n  to  those  words  of  mine,  where 
I  say,  that  though  the  original  propriety  of  the  words  ,hath 
that  signification,  yet  no  christian  man  would  say,  that 
God  made  man  according  to  liis  idol,  no  more  than  a  good 
subject  would  call  his  lawful  prince  a  tyrant.  These  words, 
you  say,  do  tell   us,  that  we  may   not  speak  or  translate 


according  to  the  original  propriety  of  the  word,  but  ac- 
cording to  the  common,  usual,  and  accustomed  signification 
thereof.  For  speaking,  I  grant,  as  the  words  are  used  in 
our  time :  but  for  translating,  I  say  you  must  regard  how 
the  words  were  used  in  time  of  the  writer,  whose  works 
you  translate.  As  if  you  would  translate  out  of  Euripides, 
Th  yrj<i  Tvpavvo<i,  would  you  say,  "  Who  is  tyrant  of  this 
land"?  or  rather,  "Who  is  king"?  or  in  Aristophanes,  Z^ca 
dewv  Tvpavvov,  would  you  translate,  "  Jupiter,  tyrant  of  the 
gods,"  or  "king  of  the  gods"  ?  I  think,  not.  But  in  St  John, 
seeing  at  that  time  that  he  wrote  eiSwXov  signified  an  image 
generally,  it  may  be  translated  an  image  generally ;  and 
seeing  he  speaketh  of  the  imlawful  use  of  images,  it  may 
also  be  translated  an  idol,  as  the  word  is  now  taken  to 
signify.  How  the  late  petty  prelates  of  the  second  Nicene 
Council  were  disposed  to  use  the  word,  to  colour  their 
blasphemous  idolatry,  it  is  not  material.  The  ancient  dic- 
tionaries of  Suidas,  Phavorinus,  Hesychius,  with  the  examples 
of  Homer,  Plato,  and  other  ancient  Greek  authors,  are  of 
more  credit  for  the  true  and  ancient  signification  of  that 

Martin.    This  then  being  so,  that  words  must  be  translated  as  their  IMaiitin, 
common  use  and  signification  requireth,  if  you  ask  your  old  question,    °' 
what  great  crime  of  corruption  is  committed  in  translating,  "keep  your-  Lococitatr. 
selves  from  images,"   the  Greek   being   dbakav,  you   have   answered 
yourself,  that  in  so  translating,  "  idol "  and  "  image"  are  made  to  signify 
one  thing,  which  may  not  be  done,  no  more  than  "  tyrant"  and  "  king" 
can  be  made  to  signify  all  one.     And  how  can  you  say  then,  that  "this 
is  no  more  absurdity,  than  instead  of  a  Greek  word  to  use  a  Latin  of 
the  same  signification"?     Are  you  not  here  contrary  to  yourself?    are 
"idol"  and  "image,"  "tyrant"  and  "king,"  of  one  signification?  Said 
you  not,  that  in  the  English  tongue  "  idol"  is  grown  to  another  significa- 
tion than  "  image,"  as  "  tyrant"  is  grown  to  another  signification  than 
"king"?     Your   false   translations,  therefore,  that  in  so  many  places 
make  "  idols"  and  "  images"  all  one,  not  only  forcing  the  word  in  the 
holy  scriptures,  but  disgracing  the  sentence  thereby,  (as  Ephes.  v.  and  Eph.  v.  a  co- 
Col,  iii.)  are  they  not  in  your  own  judgment  veiy  corrupt ;  and,  as  your  Is  a  worship- 
own  consciences  must  confess,  of  a  malicious  intent  corrupted,  to  disgi-ace  rnd"coi!^nr ' 
thereby  the  church's  holy  images,  by  pretence  of  the  holy  scriptures  that  Ps°wor°ship!^* 
speak  only  of  the  pagans'  idols  ?  Fmagef 

Fulke.     Again  I  repeat,  that  words  must,  or  may  be  Fulke, 
translated   according  to   that   signification   they   had  in  time     " 




of  the  writer  whom  you  translate.  And  to  my  question, 
what  absurdity  is  it  in  that  text  of  St  John,  for  elScoXov 
to  translate  "  image  ";  you  answer,  by  that  means  idol  and 
image  are  made  to  signify  one  thing.  But  that  is  not  so ; 
for  image  signifieth  more  generally  than  idol  in  Enghsh, 
and  "  image''  answereth  properly  to  the  Greek  word  el^wXou, 
"idol"  to  the  meaning  of  St  John,  that  is,  of  wicked  images; 
so  that  the  translation  is  good :  even  as  Tvpavvo9  may 
be  translated  "  a  king,"  generally,  according  to  the  word ; 
and  if  the  author  mean  of  a  cruel  long,  it  may  be  trans- 
lated "  a  tyrant."  For  king  is  a  general  word,  applied  to 
good  kings  and  to  evil,  as  image  is  to  lawful  and  un- 
lawful images.  Therefore  our  translations,  that  for  e'lSooXov 
say  an  image,  are  not  false,  much  less  any  mahcious  cor- 
ruptions. And  if  the  translators,  in  so  doing,  intended  to 
disgrace  popish  images,  I  think  they  did  ;well,  and  according 
to  the  meaning  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  who,  forbidding  generally 
all  images,  that  may  be  had  in  rehgious  reverence,  did  not 
restrain  the  signification  of  the  word  e'i^oAov  to  the  wicked 
idols  of  the  gentiles,  but  left  it  at  large,  to  comprehend 
all  such  images,  and  all  kinds  of  worshipping  them,  as  are 
contrary  to  the  law  and  commandment  of  God. 


T1J  Baa\, 
Num.  xxii. 
TO  dioTre- 

Martin.  But  of  the  usual  and  original  signification  of  words  (whereof 
you  take  occasion  of  manifold  corruptions)  we  will  speak  more  anon, 
if  first  we  touch  some  other  your  falsifications  against  holy  images ;  as, 
where  you  affectate  to  thrust  the  word  "image"  into  the  text,  when 
there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  Hebrew  or  Greek,  as  in  that  notorious 
example^,  2  Par.  xxxvi.  (Bib.  1562.)  "Carved  images  that  were  laid  to 
his  charge:"  again,  Rom.  xi.,  "  To  the  image  of  BaaP;"  and  Acts  xix., 

^  Kai  TO  \oLTTa  ratv  Xdycoi/  'iwaKi/x  Koi  to.  iravra  a  enoiTjcrep,  ovk 
l8ov  ravra  yeypayifiiva,  &c.  2  Chron.  xxxvi.  8.  "  Reliqua  autem  ver- 
borum  Joakim,  et  abominationum  ejus,  quas  operatus  est,  et  quae 
inventa  sunt  in  eo,  continentur  in  libro  Regum,  &c."  Vulg.  "  The 
rest  of  the  acts  of  Jehoiakim,  and  his  abominations  wliich  he  did,  and 
carved  images  that  were  laid  to  his  charge,  behold,  they  are  written, 
&c."  Bible  1562.  "And  his  abominations  wliich  he  did,  and  that  which 
w^as  found  upon  (found  in,  Authorised  version)  him,"  Geneva  Bible, 

^  OLTLves  OVK  eKafi'^av  yovv  rfj  BaaX.  Rom.  xi.  4.  "Qui  non 
curvaverunt  genua  ante  Baal,"  Vulg.  "  Which  have  not  bowed  the 
knee  to  the  image  of  Baal,"  Cranmer,  Geneva,  Authorised.    "AVTiich 


"  The  image  that  came  down  from  Jupiter  V  Where  you  are  not  content 
to  understand  "  image"  rather  than  "  idol,"  but  also  to  thrust  it  into  the 
text,  being  not  in  the  Greek,  as  you  know  very  well. 

Fulke.  Three  places  you  note,  where  the  word  image  Fulke, 
is  tlirust  into  the  text,  being  neither  in  the  Hebrew  nor 
Greek.  The  first,  2  Par.  xxxvi.  bib.  1562,  which  I  con- 
fess is  a  fault,  but  I  marvel  how  it  crept  in.  For  Thomas 
Matthew's  Bible,  wliich  was  printed  before  it,  hath  not  that 
word,  "  carved  images."  It  is  reformed  also  in  both  the  trans- 
lations that  followed. 

The  second,  Romans  xi.,  is  no  corruption ;  for  seeing  you 
acknowledge  that  a  substantive  must  be  understood  to  bear 
up  the  feminine  article;  what  reason  is  there,  why  we  should 
not  understand  e'lKovi,  rather  than  (XTYiXri,  seeing  it  is  certain 
Baal  had  an  image  that  was  worsliipped  in  his  temple? 
2  Reg.  X.  The  tliird  place  is  Acts  xix.,  where  the  word 
image  is  necessarily  to  be  understood,  "which  fell  down  from 
Jupiter,"  as  it  was  feigned.  Hereunto  Pliny  beareth  witness, 
Lib.  XVI.,  cap.  40,  and  sheweth  by  whom  it  was  made,  and 
of  what  matter  :  of  the  like  speaketh  Herodianus.  And  the 
similitude  of  this  image  is  yet  to  be  seen  in  those  ancient 
coins  that  yet  remain,  which  were  called  vaol,  "temples*." 
Wherefore  your  vulgar  translation,  which  turneth  tov  ^toTre- 
Tous  Jovis  prolis,  is  not  right ;  and  therefore  is  corrected 
by  Isidorus  Clarius,  a  Jove  delapsi  simulacri,  with  the 
consent  of  the  deputies  of  the  council  of  Trent. 

have  not  bowed  the  knee  to  the  image  of  Baal,"  Bishops'  bible, 

["^  OS  ov  yivaxTicei  •n]v  '^(peaicov  ttoXiv  vecoKopov  ovcrav  rrjs  ij.eya.\r]s 
'Apre'/iiSoy  Kai  tov  AioTrerovs.  Acts  xix.  35.  "  Qui  nesciat  Ephesiorum 
civitatem  cultricem  esse  magna  DianjE,  Jovisque  prolis?"  Vulg. 
"  And  of  the  image  which  came  down  from  heaven,"  Tyndale.  "  Of 
the  image  which  came  from  heaven,"  Cranmer.  "  Of  the  image 
which  came  from  Jupiter,"  Geneva.  "And  of  the  Qmage]  which 
came  down  from  Jupiter,"  Bishops'  bible.  "To  be  a  worshipper  of 
great  Diana,  and  Jupiter's  child,"  Rhemish.  "  And  of  the  image 
which  fell  down  from  Jupiter,"  Authorised  version.] 

Q*  The  Scholiast  upon  the  Rhetoric  of  Aristotle  i.  16,  says,  that 
vaol  are  eiKovoa-Tdcna,  capellulae  cum  imagioibus  inclusis.  Aramianus 
Marcellinus  says,  that  Asclepias  secum  semper  circumferret  Dese  cce- 
lestis  argentum  breve  figmentum.  Such  was  meant  by  rrjv  a-Krjvrjv  tov 
MoXox,     Acts  vii.  43.     Beza  calls   those  coins   vaol,   which  have  the 


MAmiN,  Martin.    Of  this  kind  of  falsification  is  that  which  is  crept  as  a 

20  •  • 

leprosy  throughout  all  your  bibles,  translating  sculptik  and  conflatile, 

"  graven  image,"  "  molten  image,"  namely  in  the  first  commandment, 
eUwXov.  where  you  know  in  the  Greek  it  is  "idol,"  and  in  the  Hebrew  such 
703  a  word   as  signifieth  only  "a   graven  thing,"  not  including  this  word 

"  image  ;"  and  you  know  that  God  commanded  to  make  the  images  of 
cherubins,  and  of  oxen  in  the  temple,  and  of  the  brasen  serpent  in  the 
desert ;    and  therefore  your  wisdoms   might  have   considered,  that  he 
The  meaning  forbade  uot  all  graven  images,  but  such  as  the  gentiles  made  and  wor- 
command-      shii)ped  as  gods  :  and,  therefore,  non  fades  tibi  sculntile,  concurreth  with 
cerning  false  those  words  that  go  before,  "  Thou  shalt  have  none  other  gods  but  me." 
|ravei"idois.  For  SO  to  have  an  image  as  to  make  it  a  God,  is  to  make  it  more  than 
an  image ;  and  therefore,  when  it  is  an  idol,  as  were  the  idols  of  the 
gentiles,  then  it  is  forbid  by  this  commandment.     Otherwise,  when  the 
The  cross  in   cross  stood  many  years   upon  the  table  in  the  queen's  chapel,  was  it 
chapeK^"*     against  this  commandment?  or  was  it  idolatry  in  the  queen's  majesty 
and  her  counsellors,  that  appointed  it  there,  being  the  supreme  head  of 
your  church  ?     Or  do  the  Lutherans,  your  pue-fellows,  at  this  day  com- 
mit idolatry  against  this  commandment,  that  have  in  their  churches  the 
Images  in  the  crucifix,  and  the  holy  images  of  the  mother  of  God,  and  of  St  John 
churches.       the  evangelist?      Or  if  the  whole  story  of  the   gospel  concerning  our 
Saviour   Clu'ist  were  drawn  in  pictures  and  images  in  your  churches, 
as  it  is  in  many  of  ours,  were  it,  trow  you,  against  this  commandment  ? 
Fie,  for  shame !  that  you  should  thus  with  intolerable  impudence  and 
deceit  abuse  and  bewitch  the  ignorant  people,  against  your  own  know- 
ledge and  conscience.     For  wot  you  not,  that  God  many  times  expressly 
forbade  the  Jews  both  marriages  and  other  conversation  with  the  gen- 
1  Kings  ii.     tiles,  lest  they  might  fall  to  worship  their  idols,  as  Salomon  did,  and 
as  the  Psalm  reporteth  of  them?     This  then   is  the  meaning  of  the 
commandment,  neither  to  make  the  idols  of  the  gentiles,  nor  any  other 
like  unto  them,  and  to  that  end,  as  did  Jeroboam  in  Dan  and  Beth-el. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     This  is  a  sore  complaint,  that  we  have  falsified 

the  scripture,  as  it  were  with  a  leprosy,  in  translating  sculp- 
tile  and  conflatile,  "a  graven"  and  "a  molten  image,"  and 

representation  of  the  temple  of  Diana  upon  them,  in  the  same  way  as 
others  are  called  boves,  puellae,  puUi,  testudines,  from  having  those  re- 
spective figures  upon  them.  Casaubon,  however,  says,  that  though 
this  is  a  probable  conjecture,  it  is  not  satisfactory,  since  no  one  of 
the  ancients  mentions  them  by  the  name.  A  medal  of  this  descrip- 
tion, exhibiting  an  octostyle  temple,  with  the  image  of  Diana  in  the 
centre,  may  be  seen  in  Calmet's  Dictionary,  p.  342.  edit.  Taylor,  1833. 
Chrysostom's  opinion  is,  that  vao\  were  a  sort  of  ambrey  or  ciborium. 
Uoiav,  (f)T](ri,  paovs  dpyvpoiis  'Apre'jaiSoy.  kol  Trots  e'vi  vaovs  apyvpovs 
ytveadai ;  'laas  (us  Kifidpia  piKpa.  Acts  xix.  24.  Horn.  xlii.  Edit. 
Savilii.  iv.  845.] 


namely  in  the  first  commandment,  where  there  is  no  word 
of  image  or  imagery  ;  but  indeed  in  the  second  command- 
ment we  translate  the  Hebrew  wordpeseZ  "a  graven  image."  ^p2 
You  say  it  signifieth  a  graven  thing,  not  including  the  word 
image.  I  answer,  you  are  not  able  to  bring  a  place  in  the 
bible,  where  it  signifieth  any  other  graven  thmg,  but  only 
an  image :  and  yet  it  is  derived  of  a  verb,  that  signifieth 
to  grave,  or  hew ;  as  the  word  p^5^7^m,  Jud.  iii.  taken  for  D'^TDS 
quarries  of  stone,  doth  declare.  Beside  this,  the  word  next 
following,  signifying  a  similitude  or  image,  sufficiently  sheweth 
that  it  is  not  taken  generally  for  any  graven  work,  but 
for  such,  wherein  the  hkeness  or  simihtude  of  God,  or  any 
creature,  is  meant  to  be  resembled :  and  the  same  doth  also 
the  Greek  word  ei^wXov  testify.  As  for  the  cherubins,  oxen, 
brasen  serpent,  or  any  thing  wliich  God  commandeth,  [it]  is 
not  forbidden  by  this  precept ;  but  that  which  man  maketh  of 
his  own  head,  to  honour  as  God,  or  to  worship  God  by  it. 
Wherefore,  very  absurdly,  to  cloke  such  abominable  idolatry, 
you  say  that  this  commandment,  I^on  fades  sculptiU,  doth 
concm"  with  those  words,  "  Thou  shalt  have  none  other  Gods 
but  me."  By  wliich,  not  only  two  several  commandments 
are  confounded,  but  also  a  vain  tautology  committed :  or  else 
that  added  for  interpretation,  which  is  more  obscure  than  the 
text  interpreted.  Touching  the  cross,  that  stood  sometimes 
in  the  queen's  chapel,  whereof  you  speak  your  pleasure,  as 
also  of  her  majesty's  counsellors,  it  is  not  by  and  by  idolatry, 
whatsoever  is  against  that  commandment ;  neither  is  the 
having  of  any  images  in  the  chm'ch  (which  are  had  in  no 
use  of  religion)  contrary  to  this  commandment.  And  although 
we  will  not  accuse  the  Lutherans  of  idolatry,  neither  can  we, 
because  they  worship  no  images ;  yet  will  we  not  excuse 
them  for  suffering  of  images  to  be  in  their  churches,  whereof 
may  ensue  danger  of  idolatry,  but  that  in  some  part  they  go 
against  this  commandment,  deceived  in  their  judgment,  and 
of  us  not  to  be  defended  m  their  error.  After  you  have 
railed  a  fit,  with  'fie  for  shame!'  and  such  like  rhetoric,  you 
seem  to  make  the  prohibition  of  images  none  other,  but  such 
as  the  prohibition  of  marriage  and  other  conversation  with 
the  gentiles,  which  was  only  for  fear  of  idolatry.  But  when 
you  can  shew  the  like  absolute  commandment,  to  forbid  mar- 
riage and  conversation  with  the  heathen,  as  this  is  for  images 




in  religion  and  worshipping  of  them,  we  may  have  some 
regard  of  your  similitude  :  otherwise  the  meaning  of  this 
commandment  is  generally  to  forbid  all  images  of  God,  and 
of  his  creatures,  to  honour  God  by  them ;  for  to  honour 
them  as  Gods  is  a  breach  of  the  first  commandment,  as 
properly  as  of  the  second. 
























All  image 
and  images, 
in  their 

Martin.  This  being  a  thing  so  plain  as  nothing  more  in  all  the 
holy  scriptures,  yet  your  itching  humour  of  deceit  and  falsehood  for 
the  most  part  doth  translate  still  "images,"  "images,"  when  the  Latin, 
and  Greek,  and  Hebrew,  have  divers  other  words,  and  very  seldom  that 
which  answereth  to  "  image.''  For  when  it  is  "image"  in  the  Latin, 
or  Greek,  or  Hebrew  texts,  your  translation  is  not  reprehended ;  for 
we  also  translate  sometimes  "  images,"  when  the  text  of  the  holy  scrip- 
ture requii-eth  it.  And  we  are  not  ignorant  that  there  were  images 
Avhich  the  pagans  adored  for  their  gods ;  and  we  know  that  some  idols 
are  images,  but  not  all  images  idols.  But  when  the  holy  scriptures 
call  them  by  so  many  names,  rather  than  images,  because  they  were  not 
only  images,  but  made  idols;  why  do  your  translations,  Uke  cuckoo 
birds,  sound  continually  "images,"  "images,"  more  than  "idols,"  or 
other  words  equivalent  to  idols,  which  are  there  meant  ? 

Fiilhe.  Indeed  there  is  nothing  more  plain  in  all  the 
holy  scriptures,  than  that  the  worshipping  of  images  of  all 
sorts  is  forbidden ;  but  that  our  "  itching  humour  of  deceit 
and  falsehood,"  (as  it  pleaseth  you  to  speak,)  hath  corrupted  the 
text,  to  estabhsh  any  false  opinion  of  the  use  of  images,  it 
is  not  yet  proved.  But  now  you  set  upon  us  with  thirteen 
Hebrew  words,  and  nine  Greek  words  at  once,  which  we  for 
the  most  part  do  translate  still  "images,"  "images :"  and  you 
say  we  "sotmd  with  cuckoo  birds  continually,  'images,  images,' 
more  than  'idols'"  or  other  words  equivalent  to  idols."  How 
many  times  the  word  image  is  sounded,  I  never  had  care  to 
seek,  and  now  I  have  no  leisure  to  number;  but  I  am  sure  idols 
and  idolatry,  in  that  translation  in  which  least,  are  named 
above  forty  or  fifty  times.  But  to  a  conscience  guilty  of 
worshipping  of  images,  contrary  to  the  express  commandment 
of  God,  the  very  name  of  images  must  needs  sound  unplea- 
santly. That  we  have  no  greater  change  of  words  to  answer 
so  many  of  the  Hebrew  tongue,  it  is  of  the  riches  of  that 
tongue,  and  the  poverty  of  our  mother  language,  which  hath 
but  two  words,  image  and  idol,  and  them  both  borrowed  of 
the  Latin  and  Greek :    as  for  other  words  equivalent,  we 


know  not  any,  and  we  are  loth  to  make  any  new  words  of 
that  signification,  except  the.  multitude  of  Hebrew  words  of 
the  same  sense  coming  together  do  sometimes  perhaps  seem 
to  requu-e  it.  Therefore  as  the  Greek  hath  fewer  words 
to  express  this  thing  than  the  Hebrew,  so  hath  the  Latin 
fewer  than  the  Greek,  and  the  English  fewest  of  all,  as  will 
appear  if  you  would  undertake  to  give  us  Enghsh  words  for 
the  tliirteen  Hebrew  words :  except  you  would  coin  such 
ridiculous  inkhorn  terms,  as  you  do  in  the  New  Testament, 
azymes,  prepuce,  neophyte,  sandale,  parasceve,  and  such  like. 

Martin.    Two  places  only  we  will  at  this  time  ask  you  the  reason  Martin, 
of :  first,  why  you  translate  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  that  answereth  to  "    " 

•^   ""  Matsebah. 

statua,  "image,"  so  often  as  you  do?     Whereas  this  word  m  the  said  o-rtiX?;. 
tongues  is  taken  also  in  the  better  part ;  as  when  Jacob  set  up  a  stone  Gen.  xxviii. 
and  erected  it  for  a  title,  pourmg  oil  upon  it ;  and  the  prophet  saith, 
"  Our  Lord's  altar  shall  be  in  Egypt,  and  his  title  beside  it."     So  that  isai.  xix.  19. 
the  word  doth  signify  generally  a  sign  erected  of  good  or  evil,  and  there- 
fore might  very  well,  if  it  pleased  you,  have  some  other  English  than 
''image."    Unless  you  will  say  that  Jacob  also  set  up  an  image,   and 
our  Lord's  image  shall  be  in  Egypt ;  which  you  will  not  say,  though  you 
might  with  more  reason  than  in  other  places. 

FulJce.  Seeing  you  ask,  why  we  translate  the  Hebrew  Fulke, 
word  matsebah  so  often  an  image ;  it  had  been  reason  you  ' 
should  have  told  us  how  often  we  do  so,  or  at  least  noted 
some  place,  where  it  cannot  signify  an  image.  We  know 
the  word,  being  derived  of  the  verb  jatsah  that  signifieth 
to  stand,  may  be  taken  for  something  erected,  that  is  no 
image,  but  a  pillar,  or  (as  your  Latin  text  calleth  it)  a  title, 
in  both  the  places  by  you  noted.  Gen.  xxviii.,  Esai.  xix.  and 
elsewhere.  Gen.  xxv.,  2  Sam.  xviii.  But  whensoever  we 
translate  it  an  image,  the  circumstance  of  the  place  so  re- 
quireth,  as  2  Kings  x.  where  it  is  said,  that  Baal's  images  were 
taken  out  of  his  temple,  broken  and  burnt.  For  they  were 
images  of  Baal,  that  were  worshipped  in  his  temple,  and  not 
titles  or  pillars.  Likewise,  2  Kings  xvii.  where  it  is  said, 
that  "  the  Israelites  made  unto  themselves  staiuas,  images, 
and  groves  under  every  liigh  hill  and  under  every  thick  tree  :" 
as  appeareth  by  Ezechiel  vi.  where  they  be  called  gilluUm, 
idols,  wliich  had  the  simihtude  of  men,  as  Baahm  and  such 





Of  the  year 






oTi  ey\v- 
\J/av  auTo 
Of  the  year 

Martin.  Secondly,  we  demand  why  your  very  last  English  bible 
hath  (Esai.  xxx.  22)  for  two  Hebrew  words,  which  aie  in  Latin  sc7ilp- 
tilia  and  conflatilia,  twice,  "  images, "  "  images ; "  neither  word  being 
Hebrew  for  an  "image,"  no  more  than  if  a  man  would  ask,  what  is 
Latin  for  an  "image"?  and  you  M'ould  tell  him  sculptile;  whereupon 
he  seeing  a  fair  painted  image  in  a  table,  might  happily  say,  Ecce  egre- 
gium  sculptile;  which  every  boy  in  the  grammar  school  would  laugh 
at.  Wliich  therefore  we  tell  you,  because  we  perceive  your  translations 
endeavour,  and  as  it  were  afFectate,  to  make  sculptile  and  "  image"  all 
one;  which  is  most  evidently  false,  and  to  your  great  confusion  ap- 
peareth  Abac.  ii.  18',  where  for  these  words,  Quid  prodest  sculptile,  quia 
sculpsit  illudfictor  suus,  conflatile  et  imaginem  falsam  ?  which  is  according 
to  the  Hebrew  and  Greek,  your  later  English  translation  hath,  "  What 
profiteth  the  image  ?  for  the  maker  thereof  hath  made  it  an  image,  and 
a  teacher  of  lies." 



FulJce.  If  it  had  said,  "  the  graven  images  of  sUver,  and 
the  molten  or  cast  images  of  gold,"  I  know  not  what  advan- 
tage it  had  been  to  you,  or  loss  to  us.  But  neither  word 
(you  say)  is  Hebrew  for  an  image.  Alack !  this  is  poor 
sophistry,  when  all  the  world  of  Hebricians  know,  they  are 
Hebrew  for  nothing  else,  but  for  graven  or  cast  images,  and 
by  the  figure  synecdoche  are  taken  generally  for  images, 
of  what  making  or  matter  soever  they  be.  And  the  question 
is  not,  by  what  art  images  are  made,  but  to  what  use  and 
how  they  be  used,  that  they  may  be  condemned  for  unlawful. 
Tliis  I  take  to  be  the  cause,  why  the  interpreter  neglected 
the  difference  of  the  Hebrew  words,  which  sometimes  is  not 
observed,  and  in  Enghsh  impossible  always,  and  unprofitable 
to  be  kept.  As  for  your  own  conceit,  whereat  you  think  boys 
might  laugh,  I  leave  it  to  yourself.  For  if  we  were  asked, 
what  is  Latin  for  an  image,  we  could  answer  somewhat 
else  than  sculptile.  But  if  a  boy  should  ask  [what]  pesilim 
or  massecath  m  this  place  of  Esay  doth  signify,  we  would 
not  answer  a  graven  thing,  or  a  molten  tiling,  lest  he  might 
shew  us  the  mantel-tree  of  a  cliimney,  and  a  brass  pot  hang- 
ing over  the  fire,  and  demand  further  whether  Esay  in  this 

n  Tt  cocpeXel  yXvTTTov,  on  eyXvyj/av  avro ;  Znkacrev  aiiro  ^^covev^ia, 
(havTaaiav  ■^evdrj,  on  TreTroidev  6  TrXacras  eVt  to  TrXacrfxa  avrov,  tov 
TToiija-ai  ei'ScoXa  K(D(pd.  Habakkuk  ii.  18.  "Quid  prodest  sculptile, 
quia  sculpsit  illud  fictor  suus,  conflatile,  et  imaginem  falsam?  quia 
speravit  in  figmento  fictor  ejus  ut  faceret  simulacra  muta,"  Vulg. 
The  English  version  is  given  from  the  Bishops'  bible  in  loco.] 


text  spake  of  them,  and  all  such  things  as  they  are.  But 
it  is  most  evidently  false  (you  say)  that  sculptile  and  image 
are  all  one,  and  this  appeareth  to  our  great  confusion,  Abacuc 
the  second,  &c.  But  I  say,  to  your  shame  it  will  appear 
by  this  very  text,  that  pesel  and  massecah  signify  one  and 
the  same  thing,  and  that  most  evidently.  For  thus  the  text 
is:  "What  profiteth  the  image  (pesel,)  for  his  maker  (iofsero) 
hath  made  it,  or  (as  you  wiU  have  it)  hath  graven  it  (pesalo:)" 
what  followeth  now,  but  massecah,  an  image  ?  you  had  rather 
say  confiatile,  a  molten  image.  But  then  you  must  remem- 
ber, that  the  maker  of  it  by  graving  made  it  a  molten  image  ; 
wliich  is  a  strange  piece  of  work,  except  you  will  say,  that 
first  he  did  cast  it,  and  then  he  did  grave  it :  but  say  which 
way  you  will,  the  same  image  is  called  pesel  and  massecah, 
without  difference.  The  last  words  are  umoreh  shaker,  "and 
a  teacher  of  lies ;"  for  which  words  your  translation  hath 
imaginem  falsam,  "  a  false  image,"  whereas  moreh  never  sig- 
nifieth  an  image.     But  of  that  afterward. 

Martin.  I  would  every  common  reader  were  able  to  discern  your  Martin, 
falsehood  in  this  place.  First,  you  make  sculpere  sculptile,  no  more  than 
"  to  make  an  image" :  which  being  absurd,  you  know,  (because  the 
painter  or  embroiderer  making  an  image  cannot  be  said  sculpere  sculptile) 
might  teach  you  that  the  Hebrew  hath  in  it  no  signification  of  image, 
no  more  than  sculpere  can  signify  "  to  make  an  image ;"  and  therefore  Sculptile. 
the  Greek  and  the  Latin  precisely  (for  the  most  part)  express  neither  T^"'""'''"'' 
more  nor  less  than  a  thing  graven ;  but  yet  mean  always  by  these  words 
"  a  graven  idol,"  to  which  signification  they  are  appropriated  by  use  of 
holy  scripture,  as  simulacrum,  idolum,  confiatile,  and  sometime  imago. 
In  which  sense  of  signifying  "  idols,''  if  you  also  did  repeat  "  images" 
so  often,  although  the  translation  were  not  precise,  yet  it  were  in  some 
part  tolerable,  because  the  sense  were  so  ;  but  when  you  do  it  to 
bring  all  holy  images  into  contempt,  even  the  image  of  our  Saviour 
Christ  crucified,  you  may  justly  be  controlled  for  false  and  heretical 

Fulke.  I  would  "  every  common  reader  were  able  to  dis-  Fulke, 
cern""  your  foolish  malice  in  this  place.  For  first,  while  you 
cavil  at  the  etymology  of  the  words,  which  the  prophet  re- 
gardeth  not,  you  make  him  say,  that  the  fashioner  thereof 
hath  graven  a  graven  tiling,  a  molten  thing.  Secondly, 
where  you  say,  that  the  Hebrew  word  pesel  hath  no  signi- 
fication of  an  image  in  it,  leaning  to  the  bare  derivation  from 

r  1  14 

[fulke. J 

210  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

the  verb  pasal,  you  control  the  only  use  of  it,  which  is  to 
signify  an  image  or  idol,  whether  it  be  graven  or  molten, 
or  by  what  workmanship  soever  it  be  made,  which  you  con- 
fess to  be  the  sense  of  it.  But  when  we  do  it  (you  say) 
to  bring  all  holy  images  into  contempt,  we  may  justly  be 
controlled  for  false  and  heretical  translators.  First,  we  know 
no  holy  images,  made  with  hands,  at  this  time  so  accounted, 
but  they  are  all  profane  and  abominable  idols.  Secondly, 
if  the  translator's  purpose  were  evil,  yet  so  long  as  the  words 
and  sense  of  the  original  tongue  will  bear  liim,  he  cannot 
justly  be  called  a  false  and  heretical  translator,  albeit  he  have 
a  false  and  heretical  meaning ;  as  you  papists  have  in  your 
late  translation  of  the  New  Testament ;  yet  where  you  trans- 
late, either  according  to  the  words,  or  according  to  the  sense, 
no  equity  can  condemn  you  for  false  translators. 

IMautin,  Martin.    As  in  this  very  place  (which  is  another  falsehood  like  to 

the  other)  conflatile  you  translate  "  image",  as  you  did  sculptile,  and  so 
Hab.  ii.         here  again  in  Abacuck  (as  before  in  Esay  is  noted)  for  two   distinct 
words,  each  signifying  another  diverse  thing  from  "  image,"  you  trans- 
late   "  images,"    "  images."      Thirdly,   for   imuginern  falsam,    "  a   false 
image,"   you  translate   another   thing,  without  any  necessary  pretence 
either  of  Hebrew  or  Greek,  avoiding  here  the  name  of  "image,"  be- 
cause this  place  telleth  you  that  the  holy  scripture  speaketh  against 
(pavTaalav  folse  images,  or  as  the  Greek  hath,  "false  phantasies,"  or  as  you  trans- 
\j/ev67i.        j^^^^  ^j^^  Hebrew,  "such  images  as  teach  lies,"  representing  false  gods 
1  Cor.  viii.      which  are  not,  as  the  apostle  saith,  idolum  nihil  est ;  and  non  sunt  Dii 
qui  manibus  fiunt.     Which  distinction  of  false  and  true  images  you  will 
not  have,  because  you  condemn  all  images,  even  holy  and  sacred  also  ; 
and  therefore  you  make  the  holy  scriptures  to  speak  herein  accord- 
ingly to  your  own  fancy. 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     Seeing  the  prophet  regardeth  not  the  etymology 

of  the  words,  but  useth  both  for  one  and  the  same  image, 
no,  nor  regardeth  the  matter  whereof  it  is  made,  as  appeareth 
in  the  next  verse,  where  he  calleth  this  idol  wood  and  stone, 
which  cannot  be  molten ;  every  reasonable  man  may  see,  that 
the  word  massecah  doth  in  this  place  signify  generally  an 
image,  which  is  made  to  be  a  teacher  of  lies.  And  whereas 
you  repeat,  that  the  two  words  do  "signify  each  another 
diverse  thing  from  image,"  because  the  one  signifieth  a 
graven  thing,  the  other  a  molten  thing,  you  speak  without 


all  shame  and  sense  of  honesty  :  for  pesel  signifieth  not  every 
graven,  carved,  or  hewn  tiling,  but  only  an  image.  For  who 
would  say,  that  a  morter  or  a  gutter  of  hewn  stone  were  in 
Hebrew  to  be  signified  by  the  v(OY([  pesel,  or  a  pewter  pot 
or  a  dish  by  the  word  massecah?  Seeing  the  use  of  the 
Hebrew  tongue  therefore  hath  appropried  these  names  only 
to  images,  it  is  great  frowardness,  and  no  learning,  to  quarrel 
about  the  etymology  or  derivation  of  them.  As  this  name 
building,  in  Enghsh,  is  taken  only  for  houses :  as  when  we 
say.  Here  are  goodly  buildings;  which  if  a  man  would  extend 
according  to  the  derivation,  and  shewing  nothing  else  but 
walls  of  brick  or  other  matter,  praise  them  for  goodly  build- 
ings, he  should  be  thought  to  speak  strangely  in  our  tongue, 
and  yet,  according  to  the  derivation,  building  may  signify 
anything  that  is  builded.  But  for  imaginem  falsam,  a  false 
image,  you  charge  us  to  "translate  another  thing,  without  any 
necessary  pretence,  either  of  Hebrew  or  Greek."  Such  af- 
firmations will  make  us  think  meanly  of  your  knowledge  in 
the  Hebrew  tongue.  For  what,  I  pray  you,  else  can  moreh  TVj)U 
in  this  place  signify,  but  a  teacher  ?  or  where  is  it  ever  taken 
for  an  image,  as  your  Latin  text  hath,  or  a  fantasy,  as  the 
Greek  readeth?  Turn  over  your  dictionary  and  Hebrew 
concordance,  and  see  if  vou  can  find  it  used  for  an  image 
or  an  idol.  At  leastwise,  give  credit  to  Isidorus  Clarius, 
who  thus  writeth  in  his  notes  upon  the  text :  Quod  ait 
imaginem  falsam^  in  Heh.  est  docens,  vel  annuncians  menda- 
cium.  "  That  he  saith  a  false  image,  in  the  Hebrew  it  is 
teaching  or  shewing  forth  a  lie."  The  distmction  you 
make  of  true  and  false  images,  is  vain  for  this  purpose :  for 
all  images  that  are  used  in  religion  are  false,  and  teachers 
of  falsehood,  which  you  with  Gregory  say  are  laymen's 
books  ;  but  what  shall  they  teach,  saith  Abacuc  and  Jeremiah,  Hab.  li. 
but  lies  and  vanity  ?  Where  note,  that  Jeremiah  calleth  the 
image  wood,  by  synecdoche,  signifying  all  images  made  with 
hands,  of  any  matter.  Again  he  saith,  "Every  artificer  is  con- 
founded in  his  image,  because  it  is  false  which  he  hath  made;, 
and  there  is  no  breath  in  it."  In  which  verse  it  is  to  be 
observed,  that  he  useth  first  the  word  pesel,  saying  mippasel,  ^D2Q 
and  afterward  nisco,  for  the  same  image  made  by  the  arti-  "j^p^ 
ficer,  without  distinction  of  graving  or  melting,  at  leastwise 
for  the  sense,  though  the  Avords  be  diverse.     Even  so  your 


212  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

vulgar  Latin  translator  useth  sculptile,  conflatile,  imaginem  et 
simulacrum,  for  one  and  the  same  thing.  The  scriptiu*e 
therefore  telling  us  that  all  images  are  false,  because  they, 
being  void  of  life,  are  set  up  to  represent  the  living,  it  is 
not  our  fantasy,  but  the  authority  of  God's  word,  that  causeth 
us  to  reject  your  fantastical  distinction  of  true  and  false 

Martin,  Martin.    Wherein  you  proceed  so  far,  that  when  Daniel  said  to  the 

Dan.  xiv.  4.  king,  "  I  worship  not  idols  made  with  hands,"  (el'ScoXa  ;i^6t/307rot7;Ta,) 
ab.  1562.  yQjj  make  him  say  thus,  "  I  worship  not  things  that  be  made  with 
hands  ^,"  leaving  out  the  word  "  idols"  altogether,  as  though  he  had  said, 
"  nothing  made  with  hand  were  to  be  adored ;"  not  the  ark,  the  propi- 
tiatory, no,  nor  the  holy  cross  itself,  that  our  Saviour  shed  his  blood 
upon.  As  before  you  added  to  the  text,  so  here  you  diminish  and  take 
from  it  at  your  pleasure. 

FuLKE,  Fulhe.     That  "thing"  is  put  for  idol,  I  confess  it  to  be 

a  fault  in  some  translations ;  but  in  the  Geneva  bible  it  is 
reformed.  Contempt  of  the  authority  of  that  apocryphal 
chapter  (as  it  seemed)  did  breed  that  neghgence.  Where 
you  write,  that  he  should  by  saying,  "  I  worship  not  things 
made  with  hands,"  have  denied  the  ark  and  the  propitiatory 
to  be  worshipped,  it  is  very  true ;  for  neither  of  both  was  to 
be  worsliipped,  as  they  were  made  with  hands ;  but  God  was 
to  be  worshipped  where  they  were,  and  those  things  to  be 
reverently  esteemed,  as  the  sacraments  of  God's  presence. 
As  for  the  cross  whereon  Christ  died,  I  see  no  cause  why 
it  should  be  worshipped,  if  it  were  to  be  had ;  but  rather,  if 
it  were  to  be  worsliipped,  it  should  be  served  as  the  brasen 
serpent  was.  None  of  the  apostles  made  any  account  of  it  : 
Nicodemus  and  Joseph  of  Arimathea,  if  there  had  been  any 
matter  of  rehgion  in  it,  might  have  preserved  it,  and  not 
have  suiFered  it  to  be  buried  in  the  earth  with  the  two  other 
crosses,  as  the  story  of  the  invention  saith,  if  it  be  true. 
At  the  finding  whereof,  Helena,  as  St  Ambrose  writeth,  Begem 
adoravit,  non  lignum  utique,  quia  hie  gentilis  est  error  et  vanitas 

\J  The  story  of  Bel  and  the  Dragon.  "  Because  I  may  not  worship 
things  that  be  made  with  hands,"  v.  4.  edit.  1568.  "  Because  I  may 
not  worship  idols  made  with  hand,"  v.  5.  ed.  1579.  "  Because  I 
may  not  worship  things  that  be  made  with  hands,"  1562.  (1584, 
Bishops'  bible.)] 


impiorum :  "  She  worshipped  the  king,  not  the  tree  verily ; 
for  this  is  an  heathenish  error,  and  vanity  of  ungodly  men." 
De  obit.   Theodosn\ 

Martin.  But  concerning  the  word  "image,"  which  you  make  to  Martin, 
be  the  English  of  all  the  Latin,  Hebrew,  and  Greek  words,  be  they  -'• 
never  so  many  and  so  distinct,  I  beseech  you,  what  reason  had  you  to 
translate  yXuTrra  "images"?  Wisd.  xv.  13.  Doth  the  Greek  word  so  sig- 
nify ?  doth  not  the  sentence  following  tell  you  that  it  should  hav,e  been 
translated,  "gi-aven  idols"?  for  thus  it  saith,  "They  judged  all  the 
idols  of  the  nations  to  be  gods^."  Lo,  your  images !  or  rather,  lo,  the 
true  names  of  the  pagans'  gods,  which  it  pleaseth  you  to  call  "  images", 

Fulke.  I  think  you  are  not  able  to  prove  that  we  make  Fulke, 
"  image  "  the  Enghsh  to  all  the  Hebrew  words,  though  you  ^7. 
boldly  affirm  it.  But  in  the  place  by  you  mentioned,  I  sup- 
pose they  translated  the  Greek  word  "  graven  or  carved 
images,""  rather  than  idol,  because  the  writer  in  that  place, 
Wisd.  XV.  13.  speaketh  of  the  first  framing  and  fashioning  of 
those  images,  which,  though  the  purpose  of  the  workman  be 
never  so  wicked,  yet  cannot  properly  be  called  idols,  before 
they  be  abused  by  them  that  worsliip  them. 

Martin.    But,  to  conclude  this  point :  you  might,  and  it  would  have  Martin, 
well  becomed  you,  in  translating  or  expounding  the  foresaid  words,  to  ^^' 
have  followed  St  Jerome,  the  great  famous  translator  and  interpreter  of 
the  holy  scriptures,  who  telleth  you  two  senses  of  the  foresaid  words;  the 
one  literal,  of  the  idols  of  the  gentiles;  the  other  mystical,  of  heresies  and 
errors.   " Sculptile,"  saith  he,  "and  conflatile,  I  take  to  be  perverse  opinions,  Comment. 
which  are  adored  of  the  authors  that  made  them.     See  Arius,  that  graved  ™    ^^'  "' 
to  himself  this  idol,  that  Christ  was  only  a  creature,  and  adored  that 
which  he  had  graven.     Behold  Eunomius,  how  he  molted  and  cast  a 
false  image,  and  bowed  to  that  which  he  had  molten'*."     Suppose  he  had 

[2  Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  1211.] 

r^  OvTos  yap  napa  Trdvras  oibep  on  dp,apTav(i.,  v\t}s  yedSovs  ev- 
6pav(TTa  a-KevT]  Koi  yXvTTTa  8r]p,iovpy(av.  Sapient.  Solomonis,  XV.  13. 
"Now  he  that  of  earth  maketh  frail  vessels  and  images,  knoweth 
himself  to  offend  above  all  other,"  Bishops*  bible  1584,  Cranmer 
1562,  Geneva  1560.  "Ort  navra  to  el'SwXa  t5)V  edvav  iXoyla-avTO 
deovs.  Ibid.  XV.  15.  "  For  they  judge  all  the  idols  of  the  heathen  to  be 
gods,"  Bishops'  bible.] 

[*  "Sculptile"  et  "conflatile"  reor  dogmata  esse  perversa,  quse  ab  his 
a  quibus  facta  sunt  adorantur.     Vide  Arium   sculpsisse  sibi  idolum 





exemplified  of  the  two  condemned  heretics,  Jovinian  and  Vigilantius 
also ;  had  he  not  touched  your  idols,  that  is,  the  old  condemned  heresies, 
which  you  at  this  day  adore  ? 

Fulke.  It  becometh  us  best  in  translation  to  follow  the 
original  text,  and,  as  near  as  we  can,  the  true  meaning  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  As  for  the  two  senses  Avhich  Jerome  telleth, 
[they]  stand  whole  and  untouched  for  our  translation.  There 
is  a  difference  between  a  translation  and  a  commentary.  In 
commenting  upon  the  text,  they  that  see  it  convenient  may 
apply  the  idols  of  the  gentiles  and  the  worship  of  them  to 
the  heresies  of  our  times,  of  the  papists,  anabaptists,  libertines, 
and  such  like,  as  the  apostle  doth  by  similitude  to  covetous- 
ness.  As  for  old  condemned  heresies,  which  you  charge  us 
to  worship  as  idols,  you  are  able  to  prove  none,  whatsoever 
you  babble  of  Vigilantius  and  Jovinian :  neither  of  both  do 
we  foUow  m  any  error,  much  less  in  any  heresy. 


Zech.  xiii. 
Loco  citato'. 

Martin.  These  only  (I  mean  heresies  and  heretics)  are  the  idols 
and  idolaters  (by  the  ancient  doctors'  judgment)  which  have  been  among 
Christians  since  the  idolatry  of  the  gentiles  ceased,  according  to  the 
prophets.  Therefore  St  Jerome  saith  again  :  "  If  thou  see  a  man  that 
will  not  yield  to  the  truth,  but  when  the  falsehood  of  his  opinions  is 
once  shewed,  persevereth  still  in  that  he  began ;  thou  mayest  aptly  say, 
sperat  hi  fiymento  sua,  and  he  maketh  dumb  or  deaf  idols^."  And  again, 
"All  heretics  have  their  gods;  and  whatsoever  they  have  forged,  they 
adore  the  same,  as  sculptile  and  confiatile;  that  is,  'as  a  graven  and 
molten  idoP.' "  And  again,  "  He  saith  well,  1  have  found  unto  myself 
an  idol ;  for  all  the  forgeries  of  heretics  are  as  the  idols  of  the  gentiles ; 

creaturs,  et  adorasse  quod  sculpsit.  Ceme  Eunomium  conflasse  ima- 
ginem  falsam,  et  conflationi  suae  curvare  cervicem.  Comment.  Hie- 
ronymi  in  Abacuc.  ii.  18.    Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  1615.]] 

[}  Sive  hific  idola,  de  quibus  apostolus  loquitur  (1  Tim.  iv.  1,  2.). 
Sicut  enim  idola  fiunt  manu  artificis;  ita  hiereticorum  perversa  doc- 
trina,  quodcuuque  siuiulaverit,  vertit  in  idolum ;  et  facit  Christo 
adorari  antichristum.  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Zacliar.  xiii.  Opera, 
Vol.  III.  p.  1787.] 

[^  Si  quando  videris  aliquem  nolle  credere  veritati,  et  ostensa  su- 
orum  dogmatuni  falsitate  in  caepto  studio  perseverare,  congrue  poteris 
dicere,  Sperat  in  figmento  suo,  et  facit  simulacra  niuta  vel  surda. 
Comment.  Hieronymi  in.  Abacuc.  ii.    Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  1615.] 

[^  Singuli  enim  haereticorum  habent  deos  sues:  et  quodcunque 
simulaverint,  quasi  sculptile  colunt  atque  conflatile.  Comment.  Hie- 
ronymi in  Osce.  xi.    Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  1311.] 

in.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  215" 

neither  do  they  much  diffei'  in  impiety,  though  in  name  they  seem  to 
differ*."  And  again,  "  Whatsoever  according  to  the  letter  is  spoken  In  Amos.  v. 
against  the  idolatry  of  the  Jews,  do  thou  refer  all  this  unto  them,  which 
under  the  name  of  Christ  worship  idols,  and  forging  to  themselves  per- 
verse opinions,  carry  the  tabernacle  of  their  king  the  devil,  and  the 
image  of  their  idols.  For  they  worship  not  an  idol,  but  for  variety  of 
their  doctrine  they  adore  divers  gods.  And  he  put  in  very  well,  '  which 
you  made  to  yourselves  ;'  for  they  received  them  not  of  God,  but  forged 
them  of  their  o^vn  mindV  And  of  the  idol  of  Samaria  he  saith,  "We  inAmos.viii. 
always  understand  Samaria  (and  the  idol  of  Samaria)  in  the  person  of 
heretics,  the  same  prophet  saying,  '  Woe  be  to  them  that  despise  Sion,  Chap.  vi. 
and  trust  in  the  mount  of  Samaria.'  For  heretics  despise  the  churcli  of 
God,  and  trust  in  the  falsehood  of  their  opinions,  erecting  themselves 
against  the  knowledge  of  God,  and  saying,  when  they  have  divided  the 
people  (by  schism),  '  We  have  no  part  in  David,  nor  inlieritance  in  the 
son  of  Jesse*^ '." 

Fulke.  Not  these  only,  but  the  idols  of  the  Simonists,  Fulke, 
Valentinians,  Gnostici,  Carpocratits,  Collyridians,  and  such  ^^' 
like,  made  with  hands,  of  Christ,  and  his  mother,  of  Paul, 
and  Simon,  and  Selene,  and  Pythagoras,  &c.  and  such  other, 
were  idols  of  false  Christians,  since  the  idolatry  of  the  gentiles 
gave  place,  by  the  judgment  of  Irenseus,  Epiphanius,  and 
other  ancient  doctors.  And  whatsoever  you  cite  or  can  cite 
out  of  St  Jerome  agamst  the  idols  of  heresies,  agreeth  most 

[*  Et  pulchre,  Inveni,  ait,  idolum  mUii:  omnia  enim  hareticorum 
figmenta  idola  sunt  et  simulacra  gentilium:  nee  multum  differunt  in 
impietate,  licet  in  nomine  discrepare  videantur.  Comment.  Hieronymi 
in  Osee.  xii.    Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  1321.] 

[^  Quidquid  autem  juxta  litteram  dicitur  contra  populum  Juds- 
orum,  hoc  omne  refer  ad  eos  qui  sub  nomine  Christi  venerantur 
idola,  et  prava  sibi  dogmata  confingentes  portant  tabernaculum  regis 
sui  diaboli,  et  imaginem  statuarum  et  idolorum  suorum.  Non  enim 
unura  colunt  idolum:  sed  pro  varietate  doctrinse  diversos  adorant 
deos  et  sidus  dei  sui.  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Amos.  v.  Opera, 
Vol.  in.  p.  1422.] 

p  Deficientibus  autem  virginibus,  et  adolescentes  deficient,  qui 
prius  vicerant  mundum :  et  idcirco  deficient,  quia  jurant  in  idolo 
Samariae,  quam  in  hiereticorum  persona  semper  accipimus,  dicente 
hoc  eodem  propheta:  Vcb  qui  despidunt  Sion,  et  confidant  in  monte 
SamaricE.  Despiciunt  enim  hseretici  ecclesiam  Dei,  et  confidunt  in 
falsitate  dogmatum  suorum,  erigentes  se  contra  scientiam  Dei,  et  scisso 
populo  ejus  dicentes:  Non  est  pars  nobis  in  David,  neque  hcereditas  in 
filio  Jesse.  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Amos.  viii.  Opera,  Vol.  iii. 
pp.  1444,  1445.J 




aptly  to  yourselves,  the  papists,  who  worship  not  only  idols 
made  with  hands,  but  also  the  idols  of  your  brains,  which  are 
abominable  heresies. 




Martin.  Thus  the  reader  may  see,  that  the  holy  scriptures  which 
the  adversaries  falsely  translate  against  the  holy  images  of  our  Saviour 
Christ  and  his  saints,  to  make  us  idolaters,  do  in  deed  concern  their  idols, 
and  condemn  them  as  idolaters ;  which  forge  new  opinions  to  themselves, 
such  as  the  ancient  fathers  knew  not,  and  adore  them,  and  their  own 
sense  and  interpretation  of  scriptures,  so  far  and  so  vehemently,  that 
they  prefer  it  before  the  approved  judgment  of  all  the  general  councils 
and  holy  doctors,  and  for  maintenance  of  the  same  corrupt  the  holy 
scriptures  at  their  pleasure,  and  make  them  speak  according  to  their 
fancies,  as  we  have  partly  shewed,  and  now  are  to  declare  further. 

Fulhe.  Thus  the  reader  may  see,  that  when  you  have 
cavilled,  quarrelled,  falsified,  and  slandered,  as  much  as  you 
can,  to  charge  us  with  false  translation  of  the  scripture  con- 
cerning images,  you  can  find  nothing  worth  the  noting :  but 
if  some  small  oversight,  through  negligence,  or  perhaps  the 
printer's  fault,  hath  escaped,  you  make  a  great  matter  of  it, 
although  it  be  corrected  by  ourselves  in  other  translations; 
and  when  all  other  matter  faUeth,  you  retiu"n  to  your  ac- 
customed vein  of  railing  and  reviling,  which  in  no  wise  man's 
judgment  deserveth  answer,  because  it  is  so  general. 



The  Ecclesiastical  use  of  Words  turned  into  their  Original 
and  Profane  signification. 

Martin.    We  spake  a  little  before  of  the  double   signification  of  Martin,!. 
words ;  the  one  according  to  the  original  property,  the  other  according  to 
the  usual  taking  thereof  in  all  vulgar  speech  and  writing.    These  words 
(as  by  the  way  we  shewed  before,  upon  occasion  of  the   adversaries'  *^*'*P-,'i'\o 
grant)  are  to  be  translated  in  their  vulgar  and  usual  signification,  not  see  also  m. 
as  they  signify  by  their  original  property.     As  for  example:  major  in  209;  and  the' 
the  original  signification  is  "greater."    But  when  we  say,  "the  mayor  this  book  ° 
of  London,"  now  it  is  taken  and  soundeth  in  every  man's  ear  for  such  "al'&e^much 
an  officer;  and  no  man  will  say,  "the  greater  of  London,"  according  ""[^^"^''^'^ 
to  the  original  property  of  it.     Likewise  episcopus,  a  Greek  word,  in  the 
original  sense  is   "every  overseer,"  as  TuUy  useth  it,  and  other  pro- 
fane writers;  but  among  Christians,  in  ecclesiastical  speech,  it  is  "a 
bishop ;"  and  no  man  wiU  say,   "  My  lord  overseer  of  London,"   for 
"  my   lord  bishop."    Likewise  we  say,  "  seven  deacons,  St  Stephen  a 
deacon :"  no  man  will  say,  "  seven  ministers,   St  Stephen  a  minister ;" 
although  that  be  the  original  signification  of  the  word  "  deacon."    But 
by  ecclesiastical  use  and  appropriation  being  taken  for  a  certain  degree 
of  the  clergy,  so  it  soundeth  in  every  man's  ear,  and  so  it  must  be 
translated.    As  we  say,  "  Nero  made  many  martyrs ;"  not,  "  Nero  made 
many  witnesses :"  and  yet  "  martyr"  by  the  first  original  property  of 
the  word  is  nothing  else  but  a  "witness."    We  say,  "baptism  is  a 
sacrament ;"  not,   "  washing    is    a  sacrament :"    yet    "  baptism"    and 
"  washing,"  by  the  first  original  property  of  the  word,  is  all  one. 

FulJce.  We  have  also  answered  before,  that  words  must  Fulke,  l. 
not  be  always  translated  according  to  their  original  and 
general  signification,  but  according  to  such  signification,  as 
by  use  they  are  appropried  to  be  taken.  We  agree  also, 
that  words  taken  by  custom  of  speech  into  an  ecclesiastical 
meaning  are  not  to  be  altered  into  a  strange  or  profane  sig- 
nification. For  such  vanities  and  novelties  of  words  the 
apostle  prohibiteth ;  whereof  the  popish  translation  of  the 
New  Testament  is  fraught  fuE.  Notwithstanding  our  meaning 
is  not,  that  if  any  Greek  terms,  or  words  of  any  other 
language,  have  of  long  time  been  usurped  in  our  Enghsh 
language,  the  true  understanding  of  which  is  unknown  at 
this  day  to  the  common  people,  but  that  the  same  terms 

218  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

may  be  either  in  translation  or  exposition  set  out  plainly, 
to  inform  the  simplicity  of  the  ignorant,  by  such  words  as 
of  them  are  better  understood.  Also  when  those  terms  are 
abused  by  custom  of  speech,  to  signify  some  other  thing 
than  they  were  first  appointed  for,  or  else  be  taken  ambigu- 
ously for  divers  things  ;  we  ought  not  to  be  superstitious 
in  these  cases,  but,  to  avoid  misunderstanding,  we  may  use 
words  according  to  their  original  signification,  as  they  were 
taken  in  such  time  as  they  were  written  by  the  instruments 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  As  for  example,  if  'a  bishop'  be  mistaken 
by  the  people,  either  for  such  an  idol  as  the  papists  used  to 
make  of  their  St  Nicolas'  bishops,  or  else  for  a  great  lord 
only,  that  rideth  about  in  a  white  rochet ;  they  may  be  told, 
that  the  name  of  a  bishop  dcscribeth  his  office,  that  is,  to 
be  an  overseer  of  the  flock  of  Christ  committed  to  his  charge. 
Likewise  if  the  word  '  deacon'  be  taken  for  such  an  one,  as 
at  a  popish  mass  standeth  in  a  disguised  tunicle,  holding 
a  patten,  or  some  other  idolatrous  bauble  used  of  them  ;  the 
people  must  be  taught,  that  this  name  signifieth  a  minister, 
which  was  ordained  not  to  serve  the  popish  altar,  but  the 
poor  men's  tables,  that  is,  to  provide  for  the  poor,  and  to 
see  the  church's  alms  bestowed  upon  them.  Also  if  the 
name  of  '  martyrs'  be  not  understood,  but  taken  only  for  them 
that  are  tormented  and  rent  in  body,  as  the  common  speech 
is  to  say,  of  men  and  beasts,  that  they  are  martyred,  when 
their  bodies  are  wounded  and  mangled  ;  here  it  is  needful 
to  shew,  that  the  saints  that  suffered  for  Christ  had  their 
name  of  then'  witness  or  testimony,  not  of  their  pains  and 
torments.  The  name  of  'baptism**  is  so  common  to  Christians, 
that  it  need  not  to  be  changed  into  washing  :  but  yet  it  may 
and  ought  to  be  explicated  unto  the  imlearned,  what  this 
word  doth  signify,  which  is  no  profane  signification,  but  a 
true  and  general  understanding  of  the  word,  which  is  used 
of  the  evangelist  for  other  washino-s  than  the  sacrament  of 
baptism,  and  so  you  are  enforced  to  translate  it,  Mark  vii. 

Martin,  2.       Martin.    Now  then  to  come  to  our  purpose,  such  are  the  absurd 

translations  of  the  English  billies,  and  altogether  like  unto  these  :  namely, 

when  they  translate  "  congregation"  for  "  church,"  "  elder"  for  "  priest," 

"  image"  for  "  idol,"  "  dissension"  for  "  schism,"  "  general"  for  "  catho- 

♦Scechap.      lie,"  "secret"  for  "sacrament,"  "overseer"  for  "bishop,"  "messenger" 

anU3,"4"iand  for  "angel*,"  "ambassador"  for  "apostle,"  "  minister"  for  "deacon,"  and 


such  like :  to  what  other  end  be  these  deceitful  translations,  but  to  con-  chap.  xxi. 

ceal  and  obscure  the  name  of  the  church  and  dignities  thereof,  mentioned 

in   the   holy  scriptures ;  to  dissemble  the  word  "  schism"  (as  they  do 

also  "heresy"  and  "heretic*")  for  fear  of  disgi-acing  their  schisms  and 

heresies;  to  say  of  "matrimony,"  neither  "sacrament,"  which   is  the  icor. xi. 

Latin,  nor  "mystery,"  which  is  the  Greek,  but  to  go  as  far  as  they 

can  possibly  from  the  common  usual  and  ecclesiastical  words,  saying, 

"  This  is  a  great  secret,"  in  favour  of  their  heresy,  that  matrimony  is  no  Eph.  v.  32. 

sacrament'  ? 

Fulke.  Absurd  translations  of  the  English  bibles,  you  say,  Fulke,  2. 
are  "congregation"  for  "church,"  "elder"  for  "priest,"  "image" 
for  "idol,"  and  such  lilce.  The  word  "church"  being  ambigu- 
ously taken  of  the  people  for  the  place  of  assembly,  and  the 
assembly  itself,  it  was  as  lawful  for  us  to  call  congregation,  as 
for  you  to  call  it  assembly.  Acts  vii.  This  word  "priest" 
commonly  taken  for  a  sacrificer  and  the  same  that  sacerdos, 
and  so  by  you  translated,  there  was  good  occasion  to  use  the 
word  elder,  for  wliich  you  use  senior,  or  ancient,  in  your 
translation,  which  is  a  name  of  authority,  as  overseer  is  of 
diligence,  minister  of  service,  pastor  of  feeding ;  all  which 
names  set  forth  a  true  bishop,  pastor,  and  elder,  and  if  you 
will  needs  have  it,  of  a  true  priest.  Of  "  image"  for  idol  is 
said  enough  in  the  next  chapter  before.  "Schism"  I  know  not 
howEnghshmen  should  understand,  except  it  were  Enghshed  by 
dissension,  division,  rending,  or  some  such  like.  Of  "general" 
for  catholic,  we  shall  speak  anon.  "  Secret"  for  sacrament 
we  use,  because  we  would  retain  the  ecclesiastical  use  of  this 
word  sacrament,  which  is  to  signify  the  seals   of  God's  pro- 

1^^  bixo(TTa(Tiai,  alpio-eis.  Gal.  V.  20.  "  Dissensiones,  sectae,"  Vulg. 
"Dissensions,  sects,"  Wiclif,  Rhemish.  "Sedition,  sects,"  Tyndale, 
Cranmer.     "  Sedition,  heresies,"  Geneva,  Authorised. 

A'tpeTiKuv  avSpmnov.  Tit.  iii.  10.  "  Haereticum  hominem,"  Vulg. 
"A  man  heretic,"  Wiclif.  "A  man  that  is  given  to  heresy,"  Tyn- 
dale. "A  man  that  is  an  author  of  sects,"  Cranmer  1539,  1562.  "  Him 
that  is  an  heretic,"  Geneva.  "A  man  that  is  an  heretic,"  Bishops' 
bible  1584,  Rheims,  Authorised. 

del  yap  koI  alpeaeis  iv  vplv  dvai.  1  Cor.  xi.  19.  "Nam  oportet 
et  haereses  esse,"  Vulg.  "  For  it  behoveth  heresies  to  be,"  Wiclif. 
"  For  there  must  be  sects  among  you,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer  1539, 
1562.  "  For  there  must  be  even  heresies  among  you,"  Geneva. 
"  For  there  must  be  heresies  also,"  Rheims.  "  For  there  must  be 
also  heresies,"    Bishops',  Authorised.] 

220  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

mises,  and  not  confound  it  with  every  holy  or  unholy  secret 
thing.  The  Greek  word  "mystery,""  which  you  would  enjoin 
us  to  use,  was  in  the  time  of  the  first  translation  more  un- 
known, than  that  we  could  well  have  used  it,  except  we 
would  have  followed  your  vein  in  vanity  and  novelty  of 
terms,  prepuce^  neophyte,  gratis,  depositum,  ^c,  or  else  made 
general  and  common  the  proper  use  of  this  ecclesiastical  term 
"  sacrament"  to  every  mystery,  and  called  the  sacrament  of 
preaching,  of  publishing  the  gospel  to  the  gentiles,  of  the 
seven  stars,  as  you  do,  and  yet  in  the  sacrament  of  the  whore 
of  Babylon  you  leave  it  and  call  it  mystery,  Rev.  xvii.  7, 
as  you  should  be  enforced  to  do,  if  you  would  translate  the 
Old  Testament  out  of  Latin,  Dan.  ii.,  divers  times,  except 
you  would  call  Nabuchadonozor's  dream  a  sacrament,  and 
Dan.  iv.,  where  the  king  saith,  that  to  Daniel  no  secret  is 
impossible,  meaning  unknown  or  not  understood,  you  would 
say  no  sacrament,  and  Tob.  xii.,  you  would  translate  sacra- 
mentum  regis  absconder e  honum  est,  "It  is  a  good  thing  to 
hide  the  king's  sacrament,"  where  you  should  say  secret,  and 
where  the  English  phrase  would  hardly  bear  you  to  say 
the  king's  mystery.  Of  the  other  terms,  in  the  places  by 
you  quoted  it  shall  bo  suflSicient  to  speak.  But  I  have  ren- 
dered reasonable  causes  of  these  terms  hitherto,  so  that  no 
man,  but  mad  with  malice,  would  think  we  conceal  the.  name 
of  church  and  dignities  thereof  in  hatred  of  them,  or  do 
dissemble  the  names  of  schism  and  heresy  in  favour  of  those 
abominations,  which  are  as  well  set  forth  to  their  detestation 
in  the  terms  of  dissension  and  sects.  As  for  the  name  sacra- 
ment, we  find  [it]  not  in  the  Greek ;  but  mysterium  we  trans- 
late "a  secret"  or  "a  mystery,"  as  the  word  signifieth,  which 
nothing  favoureth  the  pretended  sacrament  of  matrimony. 

IVIahiin,  3.        Martin.    St  Paul  saith  as  plaiB  as  he  can  speak^  "I  beseech  you, 
1  Cor.  i.  10.     brethren,  that  you  all  say  one  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  schisms  among 

r^  YiapaKoKSi  he  vfias,  dbeXcpoi,  8ia  tov  ovofiaros  tov  Kvpiov  rjfiaiv 
'lr](TOv  Xpicrrov,  iva  to  airo  Xeyrjre  Travres,  Koi  fii]  rj  fv  vplv  crp^iV- 
pLora.  1  Cor.  i.  10.  "Obsecro  autem  vos,  fratres,  per  nomen  Domini 
nostri  Jesu  Christi,  ut  idipsum  dicatis  omnes,  et  non  sint  in  vobis 
schismata."    Vulg. 

"  I  beseech  you,  brethren,  in  the  name  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
that  ye  all  speak  one  thing,  and  that  there  be  no  dissension  among 


you."     They  translate  for  "schisms"  "dissensions;"  which  may  be  in 
profane  and  worldly  things,  as  well  as  in  matters  of  religion.    But 
schisms  are  those  that  divide  the  unity  of  the  church,  whereof  they 
know  themselves  guilty.     St  Paul  saith  as  plainly  as  is  possible,  "  A  Tjt.  iii. 
man  that  is  an  heretic,  avoid  after  the  first  and  second  admomtion:    dvdpwn-oi/. 
they  translated  in  their  bible  of  the  year  1562,  "  A  man  that  is  an  author 
of  sects."    And  where  the  Greek  is  "  heresy,"  reckoned  among  damnable  alpearei^. 
sins,  they  say  "  sects ;"  favouring  that  name  for  their  own  sakes,  and 
dissembling  it,  as  though  the  holy  scriptures  spake  not  against  "  heresy" 
or  "heretics,"  "schism"  or  "schismatics." 

Fulke.  St  Paul  indeed  speaketh  plainly  in  Greek ;  but  Fulke,  3. 
if  you  speak  English  and  say  scliisms,  forty  thousand  of  the 
people  in  England  will  swear  they  understand  you  not.  But 
scliisms  (you  say)  are  those  "  that  divide  the  unity  of  the 
church  :  dissensions  may  be  in  profane  and  worldly  things.'"" 
Verily,  all  schisms  divide  not  the  church,  for  they  were  not 
all  the  church,  of  whom  it  is  said  in  St  John  ix.,  "  There 
was  a  schism  among  them :"  for  I  think  the  best  of  the 
Pharisees  were  scarce  good  members  of  the  church.  Again, 
where  St  Paul  doth  say,  "lest  there  should  be  a  schism  in  the 
body,"  1  Cor.  xii.,  he  speaketh  of  the  natm'al  body,  where- 
imto  he  compareth  the  church.  St  Paul  also  saith,  as  plainly 
as  he  can  speak  in  Greek,  1  Cor.  xi.  18.,  "  I  hear  that 
there  be  schisms  among  you  :"  yet  your  vulgar  Latin  trans- 
lator is  bold  to  say  scissuras,  cuttings  or  rendings,  where 
you  are  bold  to  go  from  your  Latin  text  and  call  them 
schisms.  And  for  exphcating  the  Greek  name  of  heresy 
by  sects,  why  should  we  be  more  blamed,  than  the  vulgar 
Latin  translator,  who  commonly  translateth  it  sectas,  and  namely 
Gal.  v.,  2  Pet.  ii..  Acts  xxiv.  divers  times,  xxvi.  and  xxviii., 
in  all  which  places  you  yom'selves  translate  "sects"  ?  Is  it 
because  he  or  you  favour  heresies  and  heretics  ?  Will  you 
never  leave  this  foohsh  wrangling,  which  always  turneth 
you  to  the  greater  discredit  ? 

Martin.    As  also  they  suppress  the  very  name  "catholic,"  when  it  Martin, 4. 
is  expressly  in  the  Greek,  for  malice  toward  catholics  and  catholic  reli- 
gion, because  they  know,  themselves  never  shall  be  called  or  known  by 
that  name.     And  therefore  their  two  English  bibles,  accustomed  to  be  An.  156-2. 
read  in  their  church,  (therefore  by  like  most  authentic,)  leave  it  clean 

you,"    Tyndale,  Cranmer  1539,  1562,  Geneva,  Bishops'  1584.     "And 
that  there  be  no  divisions  among  you,"    Authorised  Version.] 




Lind.  in  Du- 

Euseb.  lib.  ii.  out  in  the  title  of  all  those  epistles,  which  have  been  known  by  the 
cap.  22.  in  name  of  Catholic(P  Epistolcn  ever  since  the  apostles'  time :  and  their  later 
"^1579.  English  bible  (dealing  somewhat  more  honestly)  hath  turned  the  word 
"  catholic"  into  "  general,"  saying,  "  The  General  Epistle  of  James,  of 
Peter,"  &c.  As  if  a  man  should  say  in  his  creed,  "  I  believe  the  general 
church,"  because  he  would  not  say,  "  the  catholic  church ;"  as  the  Lu- 
theran catechisms  say  for  that  purpose,  "  I  believe  the  christian  church." 
So  that  by  this  rule,  when  St  Augustine  telleth  that  the  manner  was  in 
cities  where  there  was  liberty  of  religion,  to  ask,  Qua  itur  ad  catholicam  ^ 
we  must  translate  it,  "  Which  is  the  way  to  the  general  ?"  And  when 
St  Jerome  saith,  "  If  we  agree  in  faith  with  the  bishop  of  Rome,"  ergo 
catholici  sumus ;  we  must  translate  it,  "  Then  we  are  generals."  Is 
not  this  good  stuff?  Are  they  not  ashamed  thus  to  invert  and  pervert 
all  words  against  common  sense,  and  use,  and  reason?  Catholic  and 
general  or  universal  (we  know)  is  by  the  original  property  of  the  word 
all  one  :  but  according  to  the  use  of  both,  as  it  is  ridiculous  to  say, 
"  A  catholic  council,"  for  "  A  general  council ;"  so  is  it  ridiculous  and 
impious  to  say  "  general "  for  "  catholic,"  in  derogation  thereof,  and  for 
to  hide  it  mider  a  bushel. 

FuLKE,  4.  FulJce.     I  do  not  know  where  the  name  of  "  eathohc"  is 

once  expressed  in  the  text  of  the  bible,  that  it  might  be 
suppressed  by  us,  which  are  not  hke  to  bear  mahce  to  the 
cathohc  church  or  rehgion,  seeing  we  teach  even  our  young 
children  to  believe  "the  holy  catholic  church."  But  not  find- 
ing the  word  catholic  in  the  text,  you  run  to  the  title  of  the 
seven  epistles,  called  as  commonly  canonical  as  cathohc  or 
general.  But  Eusebius  belike  testifieth  that  they  have  been 
so  called  ever  since  the  apostles'  time,  hb.  ii.  cap.  22.'  I 
marvel  you  are  not  ashamed  to  avouch  such  an  mitruth. 
Eusebius,  speaking  of  his  own  time,  saith  they  are  so  called ; 
but  that  they  have  been  so  called  ever  since  the  apostles' 
time,  he  saith  not.  And  so  far  off  he  is  from  saying  so, 
that  he  pronounceth  the  epistle  of  St  James  in  the  same 
place  to  be  a  bastard,  and  speaketh  doubtfully  of  the  epistle 
of  St  Jude^      But  whereas  in  one  translation  we  use  the 

{}  See  the  passage  quoted  before,  p.  16.] 

[^  Jacobus,  qui  appellatur  frater  Domini,  cognomento  Justus,  ut 
nonnulli  existimant,  Josephi  ex  alia  uxore,  ut  autem  mihi  videtur, 
Mariae  sororis  matris  Domini,  cujus  Johannes  in  libro  suo  meminit, 
filius,  post  passionem  Domini  statim  ab  apostolis  Jerosolymoruni 
episcopus  ordinatus,  unam  tantum  scripsit  epistolam,  qus  de  septem 
catholicis  est;  quae  et  ipsa  ab  alio  quodam  sub  nomine  ejus  edita 
asseritur.     Hieronymi  Catal.  Scrip.  Eccles.  ii.    Opera,  Vol.  iv.  p.  101. 


word  "  general"  for  catholic,  you  make  a  great  maygame  of 
it,  shewing  your  wit  and  your  honesty  both  at  once.  For 
these  five  of  James,  two  of  Peter,  one  of  Jude,  and  the  first 
of  John,  which  are  properly  and  rightly  so  entitled,  have 
that  title,  because  they  are  not  sent  to  any  particular  church 
or  persons,  but  to  all  in  general,  as  the  Greek  scholiast 
truly  noteth,  Qi^cumenius  before  the  epistle  of  St  James 
saith  expressly,  Catholicce,  id  est,  universales  dicuntur  Tice^ 
^c^.  "  These  epistles  are  called  catholic,  that  is  to  say,  univer- 
sal or  general,  because  not  distinctly  to  one  nation  or  city  (as 
St  Paul  to  the  Romans,  or  Corinthians)  this  company  of  our 
Lord's  disciples  doth  dedicate  these  epistles,  but  generally 
to  the  faitliful,  or  to  the  Jews  that  were  dispersed,  as  also 
Peter,  or  else  to  all  Christians  hving  under  the  same  faith." 
For  otherwise,  if  they  should  be  called  catholic  in  respect  of 
the  soundness  of  the  doctrine  contained  in  them,  what  reason 
were  there  more  to  call  them  so,  than  to  call  all  the  epistles 
of  St  Paul  ?  Wherefore  in  this  title,  which  yet  is  no  part  of 
the  holy  scripture,  it  is  rightly  translated  "  general."  The 
other  translators,  seeing  seven  to  be  called  general,  where 
only  five  are  so  in  deed,  and  seeing  them  also  called  canon- 
ical, which  should  seem  to  be  a  controlling  of  St  Paul's  epistles, 
left  out  that  title  altogether,  as  being  no  part  of  the  text  and 
word  of  God,  but  an  addition  of  the  stationers  or  writers. 

Martin.    Is  it  because  they  would  follow  the  Greek,  that  they  turn  Martin,  5. 
KaQokiKX]  "general"?    Even  as  just  as  when  they  turn  f'iSoAop  "image,"  CathoiiciB. 
7rapado(Tiv   "instruction,"    SiKalcofxa    "ordinance,"    (rxl-a-fJia  "dissension," 
mpea-iv  "  sect,"  fivcTTqpiov   "  secret,"  and   such   like ;    where  they  go  as 
far  from  the  Greek  as  they  can,  and  will  be  glad  to  pretend  for  answer 

Jacobus,  Peti-us,  Johannes,  Judas,  Apostoli,  septem  epistolas  edi- 
derunt  tam  mysticas  quam  succinctas,  et  breves  pariter  et  longas: 
breves  in  verbis,  longas  in  sententiis,  ut  rarus  sit  qui  non  in  earum 
lectione  caecutiat.  Hieron.  Epist.  II.  ad  Paulinum.  Opera,  Vol.  iv. 
p.  574.    See  answer  to  preface,  p.  88.] 

L  KadoXiKoi  XiyovTUt  avrai,  olouel  eyKvKXioi.  ov  yap  d(pmpi(Tpevois 
edvei  evl  *)  noXei,  (cos  6  deios  navXos  Tols  'Papaiois  rj  Kopwdiois) 
Trpoa-cfxovel  ravras  ras  eVtcrroXas  6  Tav  toiovtcov  tov  Kvpiov  p.adT]Tcov 
Giaaos,  aXXa  KadoXov  toIs  Tnaro'is,  i]toi  'lovSat'otj  rois  eV  ttj  diaaTropa, 
as  Kal  6  Uerpos,  rj  Kal  ttckti  rois  vno  rrjv  avTrjv  Tviariv  XpicTTiavois 
reXoia-iv.  (Ecumenii  Argument.  Cathol.  Jacobi  Epist.  Opera,  Vol.  11. 
p.  439.    Edit.  Lutet.  Paris.  1631.] 

'224  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

of  their  word  "  sect,"  that  they  follow  our  Latin  translation.  Alas !  poor 
shift  for  them  that  otherwise  pretend  nothing  but  the  Greek,  to  be 
tried  by  that  Latin  which  themselves  condemn.  But  we  honour  the 
said  text,  and  translate  it  "  sects"  also,  as  we  there  find  it,  and  as  we 
do  in  other  places  follow  the  Latin  text ;  and  take  not  our  advantage  of 
the  Greek  text,  because  we  know  the  Latin  translation  is  good  also  and 
sincere,  and  approved  in  the  church  by  long  antiquity,  and  it  is  in  sense 
all  one  to  us  %vith  the  Greek :  but  not  so  to  them,  who  in  these  days  of 
controversy  about  the  Greek  and  Latin  text,  by  not  following  the  Greek, 
which  they  profess  sincerely  to  foUow,  bewray  themselves  that  they  do 
it  for  a  malicious  purpose. 

FuLKEjS.  FulJce.  It  is  because  we  would  have  the  Greek  under- 
stood, as  it  is  taken  in  those  places,  when  we  turn  "  catholic"" 
general,  idolum,  image,  irapaSoaiv,  instruction,  SiKaicufxa,  or- 
dinance, cr^/cr/ua,  dissension,  -aipecnv,  sect,  fivo-Ttjpiov,  secret, 
and  such  hke.  And  where  you  say,  we  would  be  glad  for 
our  word  "sect"  to  pretend  to  follow  your  Latin  translation,  it 
is  a  fable.  For  in  translating  "  sect,"  we  follow  the  Greek 
as  truly,  as  your  Latin  translation  doth ;  which  if  it  be  true 
and  sincere,  as  you  confess,  what  devilish  madness  possess- 
eth  your  malicious  mind  to  burden  us  with  such  purposes, 
as  no  reasonable  man  would  once  imagine  or  think  of,  that 
we  should  use  that  term  in  favour  of  heresy  and  heretics, 
whom  we  thinlc  worthy  to  suffer  death,  if  they  will  not 
repent,  and  cease  to  blaspheme  or  seduce  the  simple? 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  225 


Heretical  Translation  against  the  Church. 

Martin.  As  they  suppress  the  name  "catholic,"  even  so  did  they  Martin,  1. 
intheii-  first  English  bible  the  name  of  "church"  itself;  because  at  their 
first  revolt  and  apostasy  from  that  that  was  universally  known  to  be 
the  only  tnie  catholic  church,  it  was  a  great  objection  against  their 
schismatical  proceedings,  and  it  stuck  much  in  the  people's  consciences, 
that  they  forsook  the  church,  and  that  the  church  condemned  them. 
"V^'Tiereupon  very  wilily  they  suppressed  the  name  "church"  in  their 
English  translation,  so  that  in  all  that  bible  so  long  read  in  their  con-  Bib.  1562. 
gregations  we  cannot  once  find  the  name  thereof.  Judge  by  these  places, 
which  seem  of  most  importance  for  the  dignity,  preeminence,  and  autho- 
rity of  the  church. 

FulJce.  How  can  we  suppress  the  name  "catholic,"  which  Fulke,  1. 
the  holy  scripture  never  useth  ?  As  for  the  name  of  church, 
I  have  already  shewed  divers  times,  that  for  to  avoid  the 
ambiguous  taking  of  that  term,  it  was  at  the  first  less  used, 
but  never  refused  for  doubt  of  any  objection  of  the  catholic 
church  against  us :  the  profession  of  which,  being  contained 
in  our  English  creed,  how  could  we  relinquish,  or  not  ac- 
knowledge to  be  contained  in  the  scriptiu'e,  in  which  we 
taught  that  all  articles  of  faith  necessary  to  salvation  are 
comprehended?  But  we  are  content  to  be  judged  "by  those 
places  which  seem  of  most  importance  for  the  dignity,  pre- 
eminence, and  authority  of  the  church." 

Martin.    Our  Saviour  saith,  "Upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  church,  Martin,  2. 
and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against  it  \"     They  make  him  to  Matt.  xvi. 
say,  "Upon  this  rock  1  will  build  my  congregation."    Again,  "  If  he  Matt.xviii. 
hear  not  them,  tell  the  church  ;  and  if  he  hear  not  the  church,  let  him 
be  to  thee  as  an  heathen  and  as  a  publican ;"  they  say,  "  congregation^." 

Qi  oiKo^ofi-^fTQi  jiov  Ti)v  €KKXr](riav.  Matt.  xvi.  18.  "  I  will  build 
my  congregation,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva,  Bishops'  bible.  "  I 
will  build  my  church,"  Wiclif,  Rhemish,  Authorised.] 

Q2  fine  rj]  eKKkrja-la..  Matt,  xviii.  17.  "  Tell  it  unto  the  congrega- 
tion," Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva.  "Tell  it  to  the  church,"  ^Viclif, 
Bishops'  bible,  Rhemish,  Authorised  version.] 

r  1  ^5 


226  A    DEFENCE    OF     THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

Again,  who  would  tliink  they  would  have  altered  the  word  "  church" 
in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians?    Their  English  translation  for  many 

Eph.  V.  years  read  thus :  "  Ye  husbands,  love  your  wives  as  Christ  loved  the 
congregation,  and  cleansed  it  to  make  it  unto  himself  a  glorious  congre- 

1  Tim.iu.  gation  without  spot  or  wrinkle."  And,  "  This  is  a  great  secret,  hut  I 
speak  of  Christ  and  of  the  congregation."  And  to  Timothy,  "  The  house 
of  God,  which  is  the  congregation  of  the  living  God,  the  pillar  and  ground 
of  truth."  Here  is  no  word  of  "  church,"  which  in  Latin  and  Greek  is, 
Ecclesia  Dei  vivi,  columna  et  Jirmamentum  veritatis.     Likewise  to  the 

Eph.  1.  Ephesians  again,  "  He  hath  made  him  head  of  the  congregation,  which 

Heb.  xi  93.  is  his  body."  And  to  the  Hebrews  they  are  all  bold  to  translate :  "  The 
congregation  of  the  first-born,"  where  the  apostle  nameth  "heavenly 
Jerusalem,  the  city  of  the  living  God,"  &c.^ 

FuLKE,  2.  Fulke.  In  the  first  English  bible  printed,  where  it  was 
thus  translated.  Matt.  xvi.  "  Upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  congregation-,"  the  note  in  the  margin  is  thus  :  "  Upon 
this  rock,  that  is,  as  saith  St  Augustine,  upon  the  con- 
fession which  thou  hast  made,  knowledging  me  to  be  Christ, 
the  Son  of  the  living  God,  I  will  build  my  congregation 
or  church^!"  Was  not  this  translator,  think  you,  sore  afraid 
of  the  name  of  "  the  church"  ?  What  other  thing  should  he 
understand  by  the  word  "congregation"  in  all  places  by  you 
noted,  or  in  any  like,  but  the  church,  as  he  doth  here  ex- 
pound himself?  And  this  translation,  almost  word  for  word, 
doth  the  bible  you  call  1562  follow. 

[}  The  versions  of  Tyndale  and  Cranmer  render  fKKXrja-ia  at  Eph,  v. 
23,  24,  25,  "congregation:"  those  of  Wiclif,  Geneva,  Bishops'  bible,  and 
Authorised,  render  it  "church."  And  also  the  same  translation  of 
fKicXria-ia  is  given  by  these  several  versions  respectively  at  1  Tim. 
iii.  15. 

Tyndale  and  Cranmer  also  translate  the  word  "congregation"  at 
Ephes.  i.  22. :  all  the  other  versions  render  it  "  church."  At  Hebrews 
xii.  23,  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva,  and  the  Bishops'  bible,  have  it 
"congregation:"  WicUf,  Rhemish,  and  Authorised  version,  "church."] 

[^  Tu  es  Petrus,  et  supe)'  hanc  petram  (Edificaho  ecclesiam  meam; 
ut  super  hunc  intelligeretur  quem  confessus  est  Petrus,  dicens,  Tu  es 
Christus  films  Dei  vivi;  ac  sic  Petinis  ab  hac  petra  appellatus  perso- 
nam ecclesiae  figuraret,  quae  super  hanc  petram  sedificatur,  et  accepit 
claves  regni  coelorum.  Non  enim  dictum  est  illi,  Tu  es  petra,  sed,  tu 
es  Petrus.  Petra  autem  erat  Christus;  quem  confessus  Simon,  sicut 
eum  tota  ecclesia  confitetur,  dictus  est  Petrus.  Augusttni  Retractio- 
num,  Lib.  i.  c.  2L    Opera,  Vol.  i.  pp.  67,  68.  edit.  Bened.  Paris.  1836.] 

P  Matthew's  Bible  1537.] 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OK    THE    BIBLE.  227 

Martin.     So  that,  by  this  translation,  there  is  no  more  church  mili-  Martin,  3. 
tant  and  triumphant,  but  congregation,  and  he  is  not   head  of  the 
church,  but  of  the  congregation ;  and  this  congregation,  at  the  time  of 
the  making  of  this  translation,  was  in  a  few  new  brethren  of  England, 
for  whose  sake  the  name  "  church"  was  left  out  of  the  English  bible, 
to  commend  the  name  of  "  congregation"  above  the  name  of  "  church." 
Whereas  St  Augustine  telleth  them,  that  the  Jews'  synagogue  was  a  inPs.  ixxxi. 
congregation,  the  church  a  convocation ;  and  that  a  congregation  is  of  avfaywyij. 
beasts  also ;  a  convocation,  of  reasonable  creatures  only ;  and  that  the  eKK\i}(ria^. 
Jews'  congregation  is  sometime  called  "the  church,"  but  the  apostles 
never  called  the  church  "  congregation."     Do  you  see  then  what  a 
goodly  change  they  have  made,  for  "church"  to  say  "congregation," 
so  making  themselves  a  very  synagogue,  and  that  by  the  property  of  the 
Greek  word;  which  yet  (as  St  Augustine  telleth  them  most  truly)  sig- 
nifieth  rather  a  "  convocation"  ? 

FulJce.  A  strange  matter,  that  the  church  mihtant  and  Fulke,  8. 
triumphant  should  be  excluded  by  using  the  word  congre- 
gation, when  by  it  nothing  is  signified  but  the  congregation 
or  church  militant  and  triumphant ;  and  that  Christ  should 
no  more  be  head  of  the  chm'ch  when  he  is  head  of  the 
congregation,  where  the  difference  is  only  in  sound  of  words, 
not  in  sense  or  meaning.  Your  vain  and  ridiculous  surmise, 
why  the  name  of  church  should  be  left  out  of  the  bible,  I 
have  before  confuted,  shewing  that  in  every  bible  it  is  either 
in  the  text,  or  in  the  notes.  But  St  Augustine  telleth  us  (say 
you)  that  the  Jews'  synagogue  was  a  congregation,  the 
church  a  convocation ;  and  that  a  congregation  is  of  beasts 
also,  a  convocation  of  reasonable  creatures  only.  But  St 
Luke  in  the  person  of  St  Stephen  telleth  us,  (and  Augustine 
telleth  us  as  much,)  that  the  synagogue  of  the  Jews  is  called 
also  ecclesia,    which  signifieth  the  church  and  congregation. 

[*  The  LXX.  read  in  the  first  verse  of  the  eighty-second  Psalm, 
6  Geo?  earri  iv  (rvvaywyfj  6ewv,  which  is  translated  by  the  Vulgate, 
"  Deus  stetit  in  synagoga  deorum."  Upon  these  words  Augustine 
speaks  as  follows:  "In  synagoga  populum  Israel  acciijimus;  quia  et 
ipsorum  proprie  synagoga  dici  solet,  quamvis  et  ecclesia  dicta  sit. 
Nostram  vero  apostoli  nunquam  synagogam  dixerunt,  sed  semper 
ecclesiam;  sive  discernendi  causa,  sive  quod  inter  congregationem 
unde  synagoga,  et  convocationem  unde  ecclesia  nomen  accepit,  distet 
aliquid;  quod  scilicet  congregari  et  pecora  solent,  atque  ipsa  proprie, 
quorum  et  greges  proprie  dicimus ;  convocari  autem  magis  est  uten- 
tium  ratione,  sicut  sunt  homines.  Augustini  Enarratio  in  Psalmum 
Ixxxi.  1.] 


228  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

That  congregatio,  the  Latin  word,  may  be  of  beasts  also,  it 
skilleth  not ;  for  the  church  of  Christ  is  called  also  a  flock, 
and  sheep  of  his  pasture.  But  he  that  should  say  in  English 
"a  congregation  of  beasts,"  might  be  taken  for  as  wise  a  man, 
as  he  that  said  "an  auchence  of  sheep."  And  whereas  St  Au- 
gustine telleth  you,  that  the  Jews'  .congregation  is  sometime 
called  the  church ;  what  is  the  cause  that  you  do  translate 
it  "the  assembly,"  Acts  vii.,  even  as  you  do  "the  congregation 
oi  the  idolatrous  Ephesians,"  Acts  xix.?  But  further  (you  say) 
Augustine  telleth  us,  that  the  apostles  never  called  the  church 
"  congregation."  It  is  a  world  to  see  what  foolish  fetches 
you  have  to  deceive  the  ignorant.  Augustine  sayeth,  the 
apostles  never  called  our  assembly  synagoga,  but  always 
ecclesia :  and  yet  he  is  a  little  deceived ;  for  St  Paul  calleth 
our  gathering  together  unto  Christ  ewKTwaywyri,  but  congre- 
gatio, "  a  congregation,"  he  saith  not.  And  although  he  make 
a  nice  distinction  between  the  words  "  congregation"  and 
"convocation,"  yet  aU  men  which  know  the  use  of  these  words, 
will  confess  no  necessity  of  a  Jewish  synagogue  to  be  im- 
phed  in  the  word  "congregation"  more  than  in  the  word 
cKKXijaia,  which  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  used  for  an  assembly  or 
gathering  together,  either  of  Jews,  Christians,  or  Gentiles. 
And  therefore,  it  seemeth,  the  translator  used  the  word  "con- 
gregation," which  is  indifferent  for  all,  even  as  the  word 
ecclesia  is  used  both  in  the  Greek  and  vulvar  Latin. 

Mariin,  4.  Martin.  If  they  appeal  here  to  their  later  translations,  we  must 
obtain  of  them  to  condemn  the  former,  and  to  confess  this  was  a  gross 
fault  committed  therein ;  and  that  the  catholic  church  of  our  country 
did  not  ill  to  forbid  and  burn  such  books  which  were  so  translated  by 
Tyndal  and  the  like,  as  being  not  indeed  God's  book,  word,  or  scripture, 
but  the  devil's  word.  Yea,  they  must  confess  that  the  leaving  out  of 
this  word  "church"  altogether  was  of  an  heretical  spirit  against  the 
catholic  Roman  church,  because  then  they  had  no  Calvinistical  church 
in  any  like  form  of  religion  and  government  to  theirs  now.  Neither 
will  it  serve  them  to  say  after  their  manner,  "  And  if  a  man  should  trans- 
Confut.  of  late  ecclesiam  'congregation,'  tlais  is  no  more  absurdity,  than  instead 
foi.  35.  '  of  a  Greek  word  to  use  a  Latin  of  the  same  signification."  This,  we 
trow,  will  not  suffice  them  in  the  judgment  of  the  simplest  indifferent 

FuLKE,  4.         Fulke.     We   need    not  to   appeal   to   the  later  transla- 
tions for  any  corruption  or  falsification  of  the  former,  no, 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  229 

nor  for  any  mistranslation.  For  seeing  the  Spirit  of  God  (as 
I  have  said)  useth  the  word  ecclesia  generally  for  a  com- 
pany of  Christians,  Jews,  and  Gentiles,  the  translator  hath 
not  gone  from  the  truth  and  use  of  the  scriptures,  to 
use  the  word  "  congregation,"  which  signifieth  indifferently 
all  three.  Wlierefore  there  needeth  no  condemnation,  nor 
confession  of  any  gross  fault  herein  committed ;  except  you 
will  count  it  a  gross  fault  in  St  Luke,  to  use  the  word 
CKKkriaia  without  any  scrupulosity  for  all  three,  as  the  trans- 
lator doth  the  Avord  "  congregation,"  and  you  in  two  signifi- 
cations the  word  "  assembly."  Neither  can  your  heathenish 
and  barbarous  burning  of  the  holy  scriptures  so  translated, 
nor  your  blasphemy  in  calling  it  the  devil's  word,  be  excused 
for  any  fault  in  translation  which  you  have  discovered  as 
yet,  or  ever  shall  be  able  to  descry.  That  stinking  cavil 
of  leaving  out  of  the  bible  this  word  "  church"  altogether, 
being  both  foohsh  and  false,  I  have  answered  more  than 
once  already.  It  is  not  left  out  altogether,  that  in  con- 
tents of  books  and  chapters,  and  in  notes  of  explication  of 
this  word  "  congregation  V  is  set  down.  Neither  could  there 
be  any  purpose  against  the  catholic  church  of  Christ  in 
them  that  translated  and  taught  the  creed  in  English,  pro- 
fessing to  believe  "  the  holy  catholic  church."  As  for  our 
hatred  of  the  mahgnant  antichristian  church  of  Rome,  we 
never  dissembled  the  matter,  so  that  we  were  afraid  openly 
to  profess  it :  what  need  had  we  then  after  such  a  fantas- 
tical manner  (as  is  fondly  imagined)  to  insinuate  it? 

Martin.    But,  my  masters,  if  you  would  confess  the  former  faults  Martin,  5. 
and  corruptions  never  so  plainly,  is  that  enough  to  justify  your  cornipt 
dealing  in  the  holy  scriptures  ?     Is  it  not  an  horrible  fault  so  wilfully 
to  falsify  and  corrupt  the  word  of  God,  written  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  ?     May  you  abuse  the  people  for  certain  years  with  false 
translations,  and  afterward  say,  "  Lo,  we  have  amended  it  in  our  later 
translations"  ?     Then  might  the  heretic  Beza  be  excused  for  translating  see  his  New 
instead   of  "  Christ's  soul   in  hell,"  his  "  carcase   in  the  grave  :"   and  „f  the  year 
because  some  friend  told  him  of  that  corruption,  and  he  corrected  it  in  by^o'bert'^ 
the  later  editions,  he  should  nevertheless  in  your  judgment  be  counted  a  I'^t^u! '^f°'' 
right  honest  man.    No,  be  ye  sure,  the  discreet  reader  cannot  be  so 
abused ;  but  he  will  easily  see  that  there  is  a  great  difference  in  mending 
some  oversights  which  may  escape  the  best  men,  and  in  your  gross  false 

f  Congregation.    See  No.  2.] 

230  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

translations,  who  at  the  first  falsify  of  a  prepensed  malice,  and  afterwards 
alter  it  for  very  shame.  Howbeit,  to  say  the  truth,  in  the  chiefest  and 
principal  place,  that  concerneth  the  church's  perpetuity  and  stability, 
you  have  not  yet  altered  the  former  ti'anslation,  but  it  remaineth  as  before, 
Mitt.xvi.  18.  and  is  at  this  day  read  in  your  churches  thus,  "Upon  this  rock  I  will 
build  my  congregation."  Can  it  be  without  some  heretical  subtilty, 
that  in  this  place  specially,  and  (I  think)  only,  you  change  not  the  word 
"  congregation"  into  "  church"  ?  Give  us  a  reason,  and  discharge  your 

FuLKE,  5.  Fulke.  You  are  very  hardly,  and  In  very  deed  mali- 
ciously, bent  against  us,  that  you  will  accept  no  confession 
of  faults  escaped,  never  so  plainly  made.  As  for  corrupt 
deahng  in  the  holy  scriptures,  and  falsifying  of  the  word 
of  God,  you  are  not  able,  no,  not  if  you  would  burst  your- 
self for  malice,  to  convict  us.  And  therefore  look  for  no 
confession  of  any  such  wickedness,  whereof  our  conscience 
is  clear  before  God,  and  doth  not  accuse  us.  As  for  Beza's 
correction  of  his  former  translation,  Acts  ii.  27,  if  your  dogged 
stomach  will  not  accept,  he  shall  notwithstanding  with  all 
godly  learned  men  be  accounted,  as  he  deserveth,  for  one 
who  hath  more  profited  the  church  of  God  with  his  sin- 
cere translation  and  learned  annotations,  than  all  the  popish 
seminaries  and  seminarists  shall  be  able  to  hinder  it,  jangle 
of  gross  and  false  translations  as  long  as  you  will.  But 
"the  chiefest  and  principal  place,  that  concerneth  the  church's 
perpetuity,"  is  not  yet  reformed  to  your  mind.  For  in  the 
bible  1577,  we  read  still,  Matt,  xvi.,  "  Upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  congregation."  If  Christ  have  a  perpetual 
congregation,  "  builded  upon  the  foundation  of  the  prophets 
and  apostles,  himself  being  the  corner-stone,"  his  church  is 
in  no  danger  ever  to  decay.  Yet  you  ask,  whether  it  can 
be  without  some  heretical  subtilty,  that  in  this  place  spe- 
cially, and  (as  you  think)  only,  the  word  "congregation"  is  not 
changed  into  "church."  It  is  an  homely,  but  a  true  proverb : 
The  good  wife  would  never  have  sought  her  daughter  in 
the  oven,  had  she  not  been  there  first  herself.  You  are 
so  full  of  heretical  subtilties  and  traitorous  devices,  that 
you  dream  of  them  in  other  men's  doings,  whatsoever  cometh 
into  your  hands ;  yea,  where  you  yourself  can  have  no  pro- 
bable imagination  what  to  suspect.  And  therefore  we  must 
give  you  a  reason  in  discharge  of  our  credit.     For  my  part, 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  231 

I  know  not  with  what  special  reason  the  translator  was 
moved ;  but  I  can  give  you  my  probable  conjecture,  that 
he  thought  it  all  one,  (as  indeed  it  is,)  to  say  "  my  congre- 
gation," or  "my  church."  For  what  is  Christ's  congregation, 
but  his  church  ?  or  what  is  Christ's  chm'ch,  but  liis  congre- 
gation ?  And  yet,  to  put  you  out  of  all  fear,  the  Geneva  trans- 
lation hath  the  word  "  church,"  that  you  make  so  great  ac- 
coimt  of,  as  though  it  were  not  an  indifferent  word  to  the  true 
church  of  true  Christians  and  the  false  church  of  mahgnant 
heretics ;  being  usurped  first  to  signify  the  congregation  of 
Christians,  by  a  metonymy  of  the  place  containing  for  the 
people  contained.  For  the  etymology  thereof  is  from  the 
Greek  word  KvpiaKti,  which  was  used  of  Christians  for  the 
place  of  their  holy  meetings,  signifying  "the  Lord's  house;" 
therefore  in  the  northern,  which  is  the  more  ancient  Enghsh 
speech,  is  called  by  contraction  kyrke,  more  near  to  the  sound 
of  the  Greek  word. 

Martin.  What  shall  I  say  of  Beza,  whom  the  English  bibles  also  Martin,  6. 
follow,  translating  actively  that  Greek  word,  (which  iu  common  use, 
and  by  St  Chrysostom,  and  the  Greek  doctors'  exposition,  is  a  plain 
passive,)  to  signify,  as  in  his  annotations  is  clear,  that  Christ  may  be 
without  his  church,  that  is,  a  head  without  a  body.  The  words  be  these 
in  the  heretical  translation :   "  He  gave  him  to  be  the  head  over  aU  Eph.  i.  21. 23. 

povftiivov '. 

\}  The  following  extract  from  Beza's  New  Testament  will  serve 
to  explain  the  matter  in  dispute  in  this  and  the  two  succeeding  num- 
bers :  "Hrij  icTTi  TO  aafia  avrov,  to  TvXrjpmfia  tov  irdvTa  iv  Tracri 
TrKrjpoviJLevov.  Ephes.  i.  23.  Rendered  by  Beza,  "Qute  est  corpus  ip- 
sius,  et  complementum  ejus  qui  omnia  implet  in  omnibus:"  upon 
which  he  has  this  note: 

Complementum,  Trkijpcofia,  sive  supplementum.  Is  enim  est  Christi 
in  ecclesiam  amor,  ut  quum  omnia  in  omnibus  ad  plenum  praestet, 
tamen  sese  veluti  mancum  et  membris  mutilum  caput  existimet,  nisi 
ecclesiam  habeat  sibi  instar  corporis  adjunctam.  Hinc  factum  ut 
Christus  interdum  collective  pro  tota  ecclesia  capiti  suo  adjuncta  ac- 
cipiatur,  ut  1  Cor.  xii.  12,  13,  et  Gal.  iii.  16.  Hinc  etiam  illud  "in 
Christo,"  toties  repetitum;  quod  multo  expressius  aliquid  significat 
quam  cum  Christo,  vel  per  Christum.  Hinc  factum  ut  diceret  apo- 
stolus se  in  Christo,  et  Christum  in  se  vivere,  Gal.  ii.  20.  Hinc  ilia 
Christi  vox,  Sauk,  Saule,  quid  me  persequeris?  Quo  etiam  pertinet 
quod  scriptum  est,  Col.  i.  24.  Hinc  denique  nostra  spes  omnis  et 
consolatio  proficiscitur.  Qui  implet,  tov  Trkrjpovpevov.  Chrysostomus 
passive  accipit,   ut  sit  sensus,  Christum  prorsus  impleri   in  omnibusj 

232  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

things  to  the  church,  which  (church)  is  his  hody,  the  fulness  of  him  that 
fiUeth  all  in  all."  "  St  Chrysostom,"  saith  Beza,  (he  might  have  said,  all 
the  Greek  and  Latin  ancient  fathers,)  "taketh  it  passively  in  this  sense, 
that  Christ  is  '  filled '  all  in  all,  because  all  faithful  men  as  members, 
and  the  v^^hole  church  as  the  body,  concur  to  the  fulness  and  accomplish- 
ment of  Christ  the  head.  But  this,"  saith  he,  "seemeth  unto  me  a 
forced  interpretation."    Why  so,  Beza  ? 

FuLKE,  6.  Fulke.  That  Beza  translateth  the  participle,  rov  ttXt]- 
povfxevov,  actively,  it  is  plain,  both  in  the  text  of  his  transla- 
tion, and  in  his  annotations  :  but  that  he  doth  it  to  signify, 
that  Christ  may  be  Avithout  his  church,  that  is,  a  head  with- 
out a  body,  it  is  a  shameless  slander.  His  words,  upon 
which  you  weave  this  cobweb,  are  these :  Omnino  autem 
hoc  addidit  apostolus,  ut  sciamus  Christum  per  se  non  indi- 
gere  hoc  supplemento,  ut  qui  efficiat  omnia  in  omnibus  revera ; 
nedum  ut  suppleatur  a  quoquam,  nisi  quatenus  pro  immensa 
sua  honitate  ecclesiam  dignatur  sihi  quasi  corporis  instar 
adjungere.  "  This  the  apostle  hath  added  altogether  for  this 
end,  that  we  may  know  that  Christ  of  himself  hath  no  need 
of  this  supply,  as  he  Avliich  worketh  in  truth  '  all  tilings 
in  all ;'  so  far  it  is,  that  he  should  be  supphed  by  any  body, 
but  that  of  his  infinite  goodness  he  vouchsafeth  to  adjoin 
his  church  unto  liimself  as  his  body."  Wlio  but  the  devil 
would  find  fault  with  this  godly  and  cathohc  saying  ?  wherein 
it  is  affirmed,  that  Christ,  which  according  to  the  perfec- 
tion of  his  divine  nature  needeth  no  supply,  yet  of  his  in- 
finite mercy  vouchsafeth  to  become  head  of  his  church,  as 
of  liis  body ;  so  that  he  will  not  be  counted  perfect  with- 
out it.  Is  this  to  say,  Christ  may  be  a  head  without  a 
body  ?  or  is  it  for  his  benefit,  or  the  benefit  of  his  church, 
that  he  is  the  head  thereof?  But  the  more  to  lay  open 
this  mahcious  slander  and  impudent  falsifying  of  Beza's 
words  and  meaning,  I  will  set  down  his  saying,  going  im- 

id  est,  singulos  fideles  conferre  ad  Christi  complementum,  uti  corpus 
ipsum  ex  singulis  membris  est  compactum.  Mihi  videtur  coacta  ista 
interpretatio,  [qui  potius  active  istud  accipio,  edit.  1582,  p.  231.]  quum 
TO  7r\r]povar6ai  pro  nXripovv  Xenophon  usurparit.  Lib.  vi.  Hellen.  et 
a-vfiirXripova-dai  pro  crvjjiTrXrjpovv  Plato  in  Timseo.  Omnino  autem  hoc 
addidit  apostolus,  ut  sciamus  Christum  per  se  non  indigere  hoc  sup- 
plemento, ut  qui  efficiat  omnia  in  omnibus  revera;  nedum  ut  sup- 
pleatur a  quoquam,  nisi  quatenus  pro  immensa  sua  bonitate  ecclesiam 
dignatur  sibi  quasi  corporis  instar  adjungere.     Edit.  1556,  p.  249.] 


mediately  before,  upon  the  word  vrX^pcajULa,  Avhich  he  calleth 
complementum  sive  supplementum,  "  a  fulfilling  or  supplying  :" 
Is  enim  est  Christi  in  ecclesiam  amor,  &c.  "  For  such  is  the 
love  of  Christ  toward  his  church,  that  whereas  he  performeth 
all  things  to  all  men  unto  the  full ;  yet  he  esteemeth  him- 
self as  an  unperfect  head,  and  maimed  of  the  members,  unless 
he  have  his  church  adjoined  to  him,  as  his  body.  Hereof  it 
Cometh,  that  Christ  is  taken  sometime  collectively  for  the  whole 
church,  adjoined  to  her  head,  as  1  Cor.  xii,  12,  13,  and  Gal.  iii. 
16.  Hereof  cometh  also  that  phrase  '  in  Christ,'  so  often  re- 
peated, which  signifieth  something  more  expressly  than  with 
Christ,  or  by  Christ.  Hereof  that  voice  of  Christ,  '  Saul, 
Saul,  why  dost  thou  persecute  me  ?'  Wliither  also  pertaineth 
that  which  is  written,  Col.  i.  24.  Finally,  hereof  proceedeth 
all  our  hope  and  consolation."  How  think  you  ?  is  not  this 
man  willing  to  separate  the  church  from  Christ,  the  head 
from  the  body  ?  0  monstrous  malices  of  godless  papists ! 
His  exposition  of  the  place  being  such,  as  you  see,  let  us 
now  examine  what  can  be  said  against  his  translation :  for  a 
man  must  not  translate  falsely  to  make  a  true  sense.  It 
is  alleged  against  him,  that  Chrysostom  and  all  the  Greek 
and  Latin  fathers  take  the  participle  passively.  Beza  con- 
fesseth  it  of  Chrysostom,  whom  the  later  Greek  writers 
commonly  do  follow.  But  the  participle,  being  derived  of 
the  mean  verb,  may  have  either  passive  or  active  signifi- 
cation. But  why  doth  Beza  say,  that  the  exposition  of 
Chrysostom  is  "  forced,"  which  taketh  it  passively?  He  saith 
not  in  respect  of  Chrys  ostein's  sense,  which  he  liimself  fol- 
loweth,  and  it  is  contained  in  the  word  TrXtjpwfxa,  but  in 
respect  of  the  grammar,  that  Travra  should  be  put  abso- 
lutely without  any  word  to  govern  it,  seeing  the  participle 
of  the  mean  verb  may  be  taken  actively,  and  govern  irdvra, 
being  the  accusative  case. 

Martin.  Mark  his  doctors  whom  he  opposeth  to  the  fathers,  both  Martin,  7. 
Greek  and  Latin.  "  Because  Xenophon"  saith  he,  "  in  such  a  place,  and 
Plato  in  such  a  place,  use  the  said  Greek  word  actively."  I  omit  this 
miserable  match,  and  unworthy  names  of  Xenophon  and  Plato,  in  trial 
of  St  Paul's  words,  against  all  the  glorious  doctors ;  this  is  liis  common 
custom.  I  ask  him  rather  of  these  his  own  doctors,  how  they  use  the 
Greek  word  in  other  places  of  their  works  ?  how  use  they  it  most  com- 
monly ?  yea,  how  do  all  other  Greek  writers,  either  profane  or  sacred. 

234  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

use  it  ?     What  say  the  Greek  readers  of  all  universities  ?     Surely,  not 
only  they,  but  their  scholars  for  the  most  part,  cannot  be  ignorant,  that 
Tr\}ipov-      the  use  of  this  word  and  the  like  is  passive,  though  sometime  it  may 
'""  *  also  signify  actively :  but  that  is  so  rare  in  comparison  of  the  other,  that 

no  man  lightly  will  use  it ;  and  I  am  well  assured  it  would  be  counted 
a  fault,  and  some  lack  of  skill,  if  one  now  in  his  writings  that  would 
express  this  in  Greek,  "  God  filletli  all  things  with  his  blessing,"  should 
say,  tArjpovTai.  Tvavra  :  and,  "  The  wine  filleth  the  cup,"  o  oivos  irkrjpov- 
TM  TO  noTTjpiov.  Ask  them  that  have  skill,  and  control  me.  Contrariwise, 
if  one  would  say  passively,  "  All  things  are  filled  with  God's  blessing," 
"  The  cup  is  filled  with  wine,"  "  Such  a  prophecy  is  fulfilled ;"  what 
mean  Grecian  would  not  say,  as  St  Chrysostom  here  exi)Oundeth  this 
word,  TvXrjpovTai,  using  it  passively  ? 

FuLKE,  7.  FulJce.  Mark  how  malice  carrieth  this  man  ahuost  into 
madness.  For  who  but  a  madman  would  think,  that  Beza 
opposeth  profane  writers  to  ecclesiastical  doctors  for  un- 
derstanding of  the  scripture?  The  mean  verb  TrXtipovfiai, 
which  the  meanest  grammarian  in  the  Avorld  knoweth  to  be 
taken  both  actively  and  passively  by  the  grammar  rule  Be 
mrho  medio,  Beza  proveth  out  of  Xenophon  and  Plato  that 
it  is  and  may  be  used  actively.  Wliy  not  therefore  in  this 
place  of  St  Paul,  where  both  the  sense  requireth  it,  that  one 
tiling  be  not  repeated  twice  without  necessary  cause,  and  the 
construction  of  the  word  iravTa  calleth  for  it,  which  other- 
wise is  left  at  random  without  any  government?  Seeing 
therefore  we  have  the  common  rule  of  grammar,  and  the 
example  of  eloquent  writers  for  use,  I  marvel  what  M.  Martin 
meaneth  to  waste  so  many  words  about  so  clear  a  matter. 
No  man  that  knoweth  any  thing  doubteth,  but  that  ifKrjpoviiaL 
may  be,  and  is  often,  taken  passively :  but  seeing  it  is  also 
found  to  be  a  verb  mean,  who  need  to  be  afraid  to  use  it 
actively  (having  Xenophon  and  Plato  for  his  warrant),  yea, 
even  in  those  examples  you  put,  of  God's  blessing  Hlhug  all 
things,  or  the  wine  filhng  the  cup,  if  any  man  would  speak 
so.  But  if,  because  the  word  is  more  usually  taken  passively, 
men  would  refrain  so  to  speak ;  yet  why  should  we  think  that 
St  Paul  did  not  use  it  actively  ?  when  the  active  signification 
is  more  agreeable,  both  with  liis  words  and  with  his  meaning. 
But  lest  you  should  think  Beza  is  alone,  which  taketh  it 
actively,  what  say  you  to  Phihppus  Montanus,  one  of  your 
own  profession  ?  which  in  his  animadversions  upon  Theophy- 
lact's  translation,  by  him  corrected,  saith  upon  this  place: 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  235 

TrXrjpoufxevou  qui  adimplet,  vel  adimplefur,  mrbum  enim  est 
medium,  passive  autem  mdetur  accipere  Theophylactus:  "Wliich 
fiUeth,  or  which  is  filled ;  for  it  is  a  verb  of  indiiferent 
signification,  active  or  passive,  but  Theophylact  seemeth  to 
take  it  passively."  What  say  you  to  Isidorus  Clarius,  who 
although  in  liis  text  he  readeth  passively,  yet  in  his  note 
confesseth  it  may  be  taken  either  passively  or  actively  ? 
For  this  is  his  note  :  Plenitudo  ejus'\  per  omnia  enim  memhra 
adimpletur  corpus  Christi,  quia  omnia  in  omnibus  implet,  dum 
ipse  agit  in  omnibus,  ml  per  omnes  hojnines  hwc  implet  membra. 
Site  plenitudinem  et  complementum  omne  suum  liabet  ipsa 
ecclesia  ab  illo,  quia  omnia  in  omnibus  adimplet^:  "That  is  the 
fulness  of  him]  for  by  all  the  members  the  body  of  Christ 
is  filled,  because  he  fiUeth  all  in  all,  while  he  worketh  in 
all,  or  throughout  all  men  fiUeth  these  members.  Or  else, 
the  church  herself  hath  all  her  fulness  and  accomplishment 
of  him,  which  filleth  all  in  all."  These  men,  both  papists, 
were  as  good  Grecians  (I  warrant  you)  as  M.  Gregory  Martin 
is,  or  ever  will  be ;  by  whom  if  he  will  not  be  controlled, 
it  were  folly  to  press  him  with  the  judgment  of  our  "  Greek 
readers,"   which  he  requireth. 

Martin.    "Yet,"  saith  Beza,  "this  is  a  forced  interpretation,  because  MAimx,  8. 
Xenophon  foreooth  and  Plato,"  once  perhaps  in  all  their  whole  works, 
"  use  it  otherwise."    Oh,  heretical  blindness,  or  rather  stubbornness,  that 
calleth  that  forced,  which  is  most  common  and  usual ;  and  seeth  not  that 
his  ovna.  translation  is  forced,  because  it  is  against  the  common  use  of 
the  word !     But  no  marvel :  for  he  that  in  other  places  thinketh  it  no 
forced  interpretation  to   translate  he^aa-Qai  "  to   be  contained,"  which  Becipere. 
neither  Xenophon  nor  Plato  nor  any  Greek  author  will  allow  him  to 
do,  and   ^vx')^   "carcase,"  and  Trpoyvcocnv  "providence,"  and  fieravoiw  Amrrnim. 
"  them  that  amend  their  lives,"  may  much  more  in  this  place  dissemble  tiam! 
his  forced  inteiin-etation  of  ireivKripovfi^vov.    But  why  he  should  call  St  tiam."*^"' 
Chrysostom's  interpretation  forced,  which  is  the  common  and  usual  in- 
terpretation, that  hath  no  more  reason  than  if  a  very  thief  should  say 
to  an  honest  man,  "  Thou  art  a  thief,  and  not  I." 

Fulke.     I  have  shewed  how  it  is  enforced,  because  m  Fulke,  8^ 
taking  the  participle  passively  you  must  either  be  enforced 
to  admit  a  plain  solecism,  where  none  needeth ;  or  else  yon 
must  hardly  understand  the  preposition  Kara  to  govern  the 
accusative  Trdvra,  as  Montanus  telleth  you  m  Theophylact,, 

[}  Critici  Sacvi,  Vol.  vii.  Pars  ii.  p.  98.] 

236  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

and  as  CEcumenius  doth,  and  the  sense  will  be  no  more 
than  is  contained  in  the  word  complementum :  whereas  by 
taking  it  actively,  the  wonderful  goodness  of  Christ  shineth 
toward  his  church ;  who  although  he  needeth  nothing  to 
make  him  perfect,  as  Chiysostom  saith,  but  suppheth  "  all 
things  in  all  things,"  yet  it  is  his  gracious  pleasure  to  account 
himself  imperfect  without  his  church,  which  he  hath  united 
to  him  as  his  body,  in  which  he  is  not  perfect  without  all 
his  members. 

As  for  your  vain  and  tedious  repetition,  hke  the  cuckoo's 
song,  of  Beza's  misprisions,  I  will  not  stand  so  often  to  an- 
swer, as  you  are  disposed  to  rehearse  them :  only  I  must 
admonish  the  reader  of  a  piece  of  your  cunning,  that  in 
repeating  the  participle  you  change  the  tense,  and  for 
•rrXtjpovinei'ov  you  say  TreTrX^povfjievov,  as  though  it  were 
the  preterperfect  tense,  which  cannot  be  taken  but  only 
passively.  I  know  the  printer  shall  bear  the  blame  of  this 
oversight,  but  in  the  mean  time  it  maketh  a  little  shew 
to  a  young  Grecian,  that  considereth  it  not. 

Martin,  9.  Martin.  Is  it  forced,  Beza,  that  Christ  "  is  filled  all  in  all"  by  the 
church  ?   Doth  not  St  Paul  in  the  very  next  words  before  call  the  church 

Eph.  i.  the  fulness  of  Christ,  saying,  "  \'VTiich  is  the  fulness  of  him  that  is  filled 

all  in  all"  ?  If  the  church  be  the  fulness  of  him,  then  is  he  filled  or 
hath  his  fulness  of  the  church,  so  that  he  is  not  a  maimed  head  without 
a  body.  This  would  St  Paul  say,  if  you  would  give  him  leave ;  and  this 
he  doth  say,  whether  you  will  or  no.  But  what  is  the  cause  that  they 
will  not  suffer  the  apostle  to  say  so?  "Because,"  saith  Beza,  "Christ 
needeth  no  such  complement."  And  if  he  needeth  it  not,  then  may  he 
be  without  a  church,  and  consequently  it  is  no  absurdity,  if  the  church 
hath  been  for  many  years  not  only  invisible,  but  also  not  at  all.  Would 
a  man  easily  at  the  first  imagine  or  conceive,  that  there  were  such  secret 
poison  in  their  translation  ? 

FuLKE,9.  FulJce.  You  should  urge  Beza  with  a  Latin  epistle, 
seeing  you  are  so  earnest  in  the  matter.  I  have  told  you 
that  the  sense  of  Chrysostom  is  true,  but  not  flowing  easily 
from  the  words  of  St  Paul.  That  Christ  hath  his  fulness 
of  the  church,  it  is  granted  by  Beza  upon  the  word  plenitudo 
or  complementum,  as  you  cannot  be  ignorant,  if  you  have 
read  Beza's  annotations,  as  you  pretend.  But  you  charge 
Beza  to  say,  that  "Christ  needeth  no  such  complement."  Beza's 
words  are,    as   I    have   set  them  down   before,   ut   sciamus 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OP    THE    BIBLE.  237 

Christum  per  se  non  indigere  hoc  supplemento,  "  that  we  may- 
know  that  Christ  of  himself  needeth  not  this  supply."  Is 
this  all  one  with  that  you  report  him  to  say  ?  No,  his 
saying  was  too  long  for  your  thievish  bed,  and  therefore  you 
cut  o^ per  se,  "of  himself,"  or  "  by  himself."  What  say  you? 
Dare  you  affirm  that  Christ  of  himself,  in  respect  of  his  divine 
nature,  hath  need  of  any  complement  ?  That  Christ  hath 
had  always  a  church  since  the  beginning  of  the  Avorld,  and 
shall  have  to  the  end,  Beza  doth  plainly  in  an  hundi'ed  places 
confess  :  neither  can  it  be  otherwise  proved  by  this  trans- 
lation, nor  yet  by  Beza's  words  "that  Christ  of  himself  is 
perfect  and  needeth  no  supply,"  but  that  it  pleaseth  him  to 
become  the  head  of  the  church,  as  of  his  body;  which  his 
divine  and  merciful  pleasure  seemg  it  is  immutable,  Christ 
cannot  be  without  his  church,  nor  the  church  without  him. 
Yea,  as  Beza  in  plain  words  affirmeth,  this  is  "  our  whole  hope 
and  consolation,"  that  Christ  esteemeth  himself  an  unperfect 
head,  and  maimed  of  his  members,  except  he  have  his  church 
adjoined  to  him  as  his  body. 

Martin.    Again,  it  cometh  from  the  same  puddle  of  Geneva,  that  in  Martin, 
their  bibles  (so  called)  the  English  Bezites  translate  against  the  unity  of 
the  catholic  church.     For  whereas  themselves  are  full  of  sects  and  dis-  ^'^"  '^^^' 
sensions,  and  the  true  church  is  knowm  by  unity,  and  hath  this  mark 
given  her  by  Christ  himself,  in  whose  person  Salomon  speaking  saith, 
Una  est  columba  mea,  that  is,  "  One  is  my  dove,"  or,  "  My  dove  is  one ;"  cant.  vi.  8. 
therefore  instead  hereof  the  foresaid  bible  saith,  "  My  dove  is  alone ;"  '^'"  * 
neither  Hebrew  nor  Greek  word  having  that  signification,  but  being  as  ^'J. 
proper  to  signify  one,  as  unus  in  Latin. 

FulJce.  He  that  hath  any  nose  may  smell  that  this  cen-  Fulkb, 
sure  cometh  from  the  stinking  puddle  of  popish  malice.  For  ^^' 
he  that  saith  "my  dove  is  alone,"  Cant.  vi.  8,  doth  a  great  deal 
more  strongly  avouch  the  unity  of  the  church,  than  he  that 
sayeth  "  my  dove  is  one."  For  whereas  Salomon  sayeth  in 
the  verse  going  immediately  before,  "  There  are  threescore 
queens,  and  fourscore  concubines,  and  of  the  damsels  without 

p  Mt'a  eVri  irepia-Tepd  fiov.  Canticles  vi.  8.  "  Una  est  columba 
mea,"  Vulg.  "One  is  my  dove,  one  is  my  darling,"  Cranmer  1562, 
Bishops'  bible.  *'  My  dove,  my  undefiled  is  but  one ;  she  is  the  only 
one  of  her  mother,  she  is  the  choice  one  of  her  that  bare  her,"  Au- 
thorised version.    "My  dove  is  alone,"  Geneva,  1560.] 




number ;""  if  you  add  thereto  "  my  dove  is  one,"  it  may  be 
thought  she  is  one  of  those  last  mentioned.  But  if  you  say, 
as  the  Geneva  bible  doth,  but  "  my  dove  is  alone,  and  my 
undefiled  is  the  only  daughter  of  her  mother  ;"  now  the 
church  is  excepted  from  all  the  rest  of  the  queens,  concu- 
bines, and  damsels.  And  where  you  say,  the  Hebrew  hath 
not  that  signification,  I  pray  you  go  no  further  but  even  to 
the  same  verse,  and  tell  me  whether  the  sense  be,  that  she 
is  one  of  her  mother's  daughters,  or  the  only  daughter  of 
her  mother  ?  Here  therefore  (as  almost  everywhere)  you 
do  nothing,  but  seek  a  knot  in  a  rush. 



Martin.  But  we  beseech  every  indifferent  reader,  even  for  his  soul's 
health,  to  consider  that  one  point  specially  before  mentioned,  of  their 
abandoning  the  name  of  "  church"  for  so  many  years  out  of  their  Enghsh 
bibles,  thereby  to  defeat  the  strongest  argument  that  might  and  may 
possibly  be  brought  against  them  and  aU  other  heretics;  to  wit,  the 
authority  of  the  church,  which  is  so  many  ways  and  so  greatly  recom- 
mended unto  all  Christians  in  holy  scriptures.  Consider,  I  pray  you, 
what  a  maUcious  intention  they  had  herein:  first,  that  the  name 
"  church"  should  never  sound  in  the  common  people's  ears  out  of  the 
scriptures ;  secondly,  that  as  in  other  things,  so  in  this  also,  it  might 
seem  to  the  ignorant  a  good  argument  against  the  authority  of  the 
church  to  say,  "  We  find  not  this  Avord  '  church'  in  all  the  holy  scrip- 
tures." For  as  iu  other  articles  they  say  so,  because  they  find  not  the 
express  word  in  the  holy  scripture ;  so  did  they  well  provide,  that  the 
word  "  church"  in  the  holy  scriptures  should  not  stay  or  hinder  their 
schismatical  and  heretical  proceedings,  as  long  as  that  was  the  only 
Enghsh  translation  that  was  read  and  hked  among  the  people  ;  that  is, 
so  long  till  they  had  by  preaching  taken  away  the  cathoUc  church's 
credit  and  authority  altogether  among  the  ignorant,  by  opposing  the 
scriptures  thereunto  which  themselves  had  thus  falsely  translated. 

Fulke.  We  trust  every  indiiferent  reader  will  consider, 
that  they  which  translated  the  Greek  word  ecclesia,  "the  con- 
gregation," and  admonished  in  the  notes  that  they  did  by 
that  word  mean  "  the  church  ;"  and  they  which  in  the  creed 
might  have  translated  ecclesiam  catholicam,  "  the  universal  con- 
gregation," taught  all  children  to  say,  "  I  believe  the  cathoUc 
church,"  could  have  no  such  devilish  meaning  as  this  mahcious 
slanderer  of  his  own  head  doth  imagine.  For  who  ever 
heard  any  man  reason  thus  :  This  word  "church"  is  not  found 
in  the  scripture,  therefore  the  church  must  be  despised,  &c.  ? 
Rather  it  is  like  (beside   other  reasons  before  alleged)  that 

v.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  239 

those  first  translators,  having  in  the  Old  Testament  out  of  the 
Hebrew  translated  the  words  caJial  hadath,  and  such  other  for 
"  the  congregation"  (where  the  papists  will  not  translate  "the 
church,"  although  their  Latin  text  be  ecclesia,  as  appeareth 
Acts  vii.,  where  they  call  it  "assembly"),  thought  good  to  retain 
the  word  "congregation"  throughout  the  New  Testament  also, 
lest  it  might  be  thought  of  the  ignorant,  that  God  had  no 
church  in  the  time  of  the  Old  Testament.  Howsoever  it 
was,  they  departed  neither  from  the  word  nor  meaning  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  nor  from  the  usage  of  that  word  ecclesia^ 
which  in  the  scripture  signifieth  as  generally  any  assembly, 
as  the  word  "congregation"  doth  in  English. 

240  A     DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 


Heretical  Translation  against  Priest  and  Priesthood. 

Mariin,  1.  Martin.  But  because  it  may  be,  they  will  stand  here  upon  their 
later  translations  which  have  the  name  "church,"  (because  by  that 
time  they  saw  the  absurdity  of  changing  the  name,  and  now  their  num- 
ber was  increased,  and  themselves  began  to  challenge  to  be  the  true 
church,  though  not  the  catholic ;  and  for  former  times  when  they  were 
not,  they  devised  an  invisible  church ;)  if  then  they  will  stand  upon 
their  later  translations,  and  refuse  to  j  ustify  the  former ;  let  us  demand 
of  them  concerning  all  their  English  translations,  why  and  to  what  end 
they  suppress  the  name  "priest,"  translating  it  "elder"  in  all  places 
where  the  holy  scripture  would  signify  by  presbyter  and  presbyterium  the 
"priests"  and  "priesthood"  of  the  New  Testament? 

FuLKE,  1.  Fulke.  If  any  error  have  escaped  the  former  transla- 
tions, that  hath  been  reformed  in  the  later,  aU  reasonable 
men  ought  to  be  satisfied  with  om*  own  corrections.  But 
because  we  are  not  charged  with  oversights  and  small  faults 
committed  either  of  ignorance  or  of  negligence,  but  with 
shameless  translations,  wilful  and  heretical  corruptions,  we 
may  not  acknowledge  any  such  crimes  whereof  our  conscience 
is  clear.  That  we  "  devised  an  invisible  church,"  because  we 
were  few  in  number,  when  om*  translations  were  first  printed, 
it  is  a  lewd  slander.  For  being  multiphed,  as  we  are,  (God 
be  thanked !)  we  hold  still  that  the  catholic  church,  which  is 
the  mother  of  us  all,  is  invisible,  and  that  the  church  on 
earth  may  at  some  times  be  driven  into  such  straits,  as 
of  the  wicked  it  shall  not  be  known.  And  this  we  held 
always,  and  not  otherwise.  Now  touching  the  word  pres- 
hyter  and  presbyterium,  why  we  translate  them  not  "  priest 
and  priesthood  of  the  New  Testament,"  we  have  given  suf- 
ficient reason  before  :  but  because  we  are  here  urged  afresh, 
we  must  answer  as  occasion  shall  be  offered. 

Martin,  2.  Martin.  Understand,  gentle  reader,  their  wily  policy  therein  is  this: 
to  take  away  the  holy  sacrifice  of  the  mass,  they  take  away  both  altar 
and  priest ;  because  they  know  right  well  that  these  three,  priest,  sacri- 
fice, and  altar,  are  dependents  and  consequents  one  of  another,  so  that 
they  cannot  be  separated.  If  there  be  an  external  sacrifice,  there  must 
be  an  external  priesthood  to  offer  it,  an  altar  to  offer  the  same  upon. 


So  had  the  Gentiles  their  sacrifices,  priests,  and  altars;  so  had  the  Jews; 
so  Christ  himself,  being  a  priest  according  to  the  order  of  Melchisedec, 
had  a  sacrifice,  hjs  body;  and  an  altar,  his  cross,  upon  the  which  he 
oiFered  it.  And  because  he  instituted  this  sacrifice  to  continue  in  his 
church  for  ever,  in  commemoration  and  representation  of  his  death, 
therefore  did  he  withal  ordain  his  apostles  priests  at  his  last  supper, 
there  and  then  instituted  the  holy  order  of  priesthood  and  priests  (saying, 
Hoc  facite,  "  Do  this,")  to  offer  the  self-same  sacrifice  in  a  mystical  and  LukexxU. 
unbloody  manner,  until  the  world's  end. 

FulJce.  In  denying  the  blasphemous  sacrifice  of  the  Fulke,  2, 
popish  mass,  with  the  altar  and  priesthood  that  thereto  be- 
longeth,  we  use  no  wily  policy,  but  with  open  mouth  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  places,  we  cry  out  upon  it.  The  sacrifices, 
priests,  and  altars  of  the  gentiles  were  abominable.  The 
sacrifices  of  the  Jews,  their  priests,  and  altars,  are  all  accom- 
phshed  and  finished  in  the  only  sacrifice  of  Christ,  our  high 
priest,  offered  once  for  all  upon  the  altar  of  the  cross  : 
which  Christ  our  Saviour,  seeing  he  is  a  priest  according 
to  the  order  of  Melchisedec,  hath  an  eternal  priesthood, 
and  such  as  passeth  not  by  succession,  Heb.  vii.  Therefore 
did  not  Christ  at  his  last  supper  institute  any  external  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice  of  his  body  and  blood,  but  a  sacrament, 
joined  with  the  spiritual  sacrifice  of  praise  and  thanksgiving : 
which  sacrament  being  administered  by  the  ministers  thereto 
appointed,  the  sacrifice  is  common  to  the  whole  church  of 
the  faithful,  who  are  all  spiritual  priests,  to  offer  up  spiritual 
sacrifices,  as  much  as  the  minister  of  the  word  and  sa- 

Martin.  To  defeat  all  this,  and  to  take  away  all  external  priesthood  Martin,  2. 
and  sacrifice,  they  by  corrupt  translation  of  the  holy  scriptures  make 
them  clean  dumb,  as  though  they  had  not  a  word  of  any  such  priests, 
or  priesthood,  as  we  speak  of.  Their  bibles,  we  grant,  have  the  name 
of  priests  very  often,  but  that  is  when  mention  is  made  either  of  the 
priests  of  the  Jews,  or  of  the  priests  of  the  Gentiles  (specially  when 
they  are  reprehended  and  blamed  in  the  holy  scriptures) ;  and  in  such 
places  our  adversaries  have  the  name  "  priests"  in  their  translations,  to 
make  the  very  name  of  "  priest"  odious  among  the  common  ignorant 
people.  Again,  they  have  also  the  name  "  priests,"  when  they  are  taken 
for  all  manner  of  men,  women,  or  children,  that  offer  internal  and 
spiritual  sacrifices ;  whereby  our  adversaries  would  falsely  signify  that 
there  are  no  other  priests,  as  one  of  them  late  freshly  avoucheth,  directly  whitaker's. 
against  St  Augustine,  who  in  one  brief  sentence  distinguisheth  priests  *''  ^" 

[fulke. J 

242  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

properly  so  called  in  the  church,  and  priests  as  it  is  a  common  name 

to  all  Christians.  Lib.  xx.  de  Civit.  Dei,  cap.  10.^    This  name  then  of 

"priest"  and   "priesthood"  properly  so  called,  as  St  Augustine  saith, 

which  is  an  order  distinct  from  the  laity  and  vulgar  people,  ordained  to 

offer  Christ  in  an  unbloody  manner  in  sacrifice  to  his  heavenly  Father 

for  us,  to  preach  and  minister  the  sacraments,  and  to  be  the  pastors  of 

the  people,  they  wholly  suppress  in  their  translations ;  and  in  all  places 

where  the  holy  scripture  calleth  them  presbyteros,  there  they  never 

translate  "priests,"  but  "elders."    And  that  they  do  observe  so  duly  and 

See  the  Puri-  so  warily,  and  with  so  full  and  general  consent  in  all  their  English  bibles, 

p.  159,  and'    as  the  puritaus  do  plainly  confess,  and  M.  Whitgift  denieth  it  not,  that  a 

i>efence  *      man  would  wonder  to  see,  how  careful  they  are  that  the  people  may  not 

i^ritans  p    o^ce  hear  the  name  of  any  such  "  priest "  in  all  the  holy  scriptures. 


FuLKE,  3.  Fulke.  Now  you  have  gotten  a  fine  net  to  dance  naked 
in,  that  no  ignorant  bhnd  buzzard  can  see  you.  The  masks 
of  your  net  be  the  ambiguous  and  abusive  significations  of 
this  word  "priest";  which  indeed,  according  to  the  original  deri- 
vation from  presbyter,  should  signify  nothing  else  but  an 
"  elder,"  as  we  translate  it,  that  is,  one  appointed  to  govern 
the  church  of  God  according  to  his  word,  but  not  to  offer 
sacrifice  for  the  quick  and  the  dead.  But  by  usurpation  it 
is  commonly  taken  to  signify  a  sacrificer,  such  as  lepev^  is 
in  Greek,  and  sacerdos  in  Latin ;  by  which  names  the  minis- 
ters of  the  gospel  are  never  called  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
After  this  common  acceptation  and  use  of  this  word  "priest," 
we  call  the  sacrificers  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  of  the  gen- 
tiles also,  because  the  scripture  calleth  them  by  one  name, 
cohanin,  or  'lepel^  :  but  because  the  scripture  calleth  the  minis- 
ters of  the  New  Testament  by  divers  other  names,  and  never 
by  the  name  of  'lepelst  we  thought  it  necessary  to  observe 
that  distinction  which  we  see  the  Holy  Ghost  so  precisely 
hath  observed.  Therefore,  where  the  scripture  calleth  them 
irpecr^vrepov^,  we  call  them,  according  to  the  etymology, 
"elders,"  and  not  priests  :  which  word  is  taken  up  by  common 
usurpation  to  signify  sacrificers  of  Jews,  gentiles,  or  papists, 

\}  Quod  autem  cum  dixisset.  In  istis  secunda  mors  non  habet  potestatem  ; 
adjunxit  atque  ait,  Sed  erunt  sacerdotes  Deiet  Christi,  et  regnabunt  cum  eo 
mille  annis :  non  utique  de  solis  episcopis  et  presbyteris  dictum  est,  qui 
proprie  jam  vocantur  in  ecclesia  sacerdotes ;  sed  sicut  omnes  Christianos 
dicimus  propter  mysticum  chrisma,  sic  omnes  sacerdotes,  quoniam  mem- 
bra sunt  unius  Sacerdotis.  Augustin.  de  Civitat.  Dei.  Lib.  xx.  c.  10. 
Opera.  Vol,  vi.  p.  944.] 


or  else  all  Christians  in  respect  of  spiritual  sacrifices.  And 
although  Augustine,  and  other  of  the  ancient  fathers,  call  the 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament  by  the  name  of  sacerdotes, 
and  lepeh,  which  signify  the  ministers  of  the  Old  Testament ; 
yet  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  making  a  perfect  dis- 
tinction between  these  two  appellations  and  functions,  ought 
to  be  of  more  estimation  with  us.  The  fathers  were  content 
to  speak  in  Latin  and  Greek,  as  the  terms  were  taken  up 
by  the  common  people  newly  converted  from  gentihty ;  but 
yet  they  retained  the  difference  of  the  sacrificing  priesthood 
of  the  one,  and  the  ministerial  office  of  the  other.  This 
may  suffice  therefore  to  render  a  reason,  why  we  use  not 
the  word  "priest"  for  "ministers"  of  the  New  Testament :  not 
that  we  refuse  it  in  respect  of  the  etymology,  but  in  respect 
of  the  use  and  common  signification  thereof. 

Martin.    As  for  example  in  their  translations,  when  there  fell  a  Martin,  4. 
question  about  circumcision,  "  They  determined  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  irpea-^vTe. 
should  go  up  to  Jerusalem  unto  the    apostles  and  elders  about  this  ^resbyteros. 
question."  Acts  xv^     And  again,  "  They  were  received  of  the  congrega- 

[^  In  Acts  XV.  4,  Ta>v  anocTTuXcov  Koi  tcov  Trpea^vrepaiv  is  ren- 
dered, in  the  Vulgate,  "ab  apostolis  et  senioribus:"  also,  in  verses 
20,  22,  23.  In  verse  41,  seniorum  is  used,  though  there  is  not  any 
corresponding  clause  in  the  Greek.    See  also  chap.  xvi.  4. 

irpos  Tovs  aTToa-ToKovs  Koi  Trpta-^vrtpovs,  Acts  XV.  2,  is  rendered 
thus  in  the  different  versions:  "To  the  apostolis  and  preestis," 
Wiclif,  1380.  ''To  the  apostles  and  elders,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer, 
Geneva,  and  Authorised. 

aTre8€x6Tj(Tav  imo  r^j  eKKXrjcrlas  koX  rwv  aTToaroKav  koi  twv  npecr- 
^vTfpcov.  Acts  XV.  4.  "  They  werun  resceyued  of  the  chirche,  and  of 
the  apostlis,  and  of  the  elder  men,"  Wiclif.  "They  were  received  of 
the  congregation,  and  of  the  apostles  and  elders,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer. 
"They  were  received  of  the  church,  and  of  the  apostles  and  elders," 
Geneva  version,  and  Authorised. 

2u»'>;;^^j;o-ai'  5e  ol  tiTrocrroXot  koi  ol  npfo-^vTepoi.  Acts  XV.  6.  "  And 
the  apostlis  and  elder  men  camen  'togidre,"  Wiclif.  "And  the  apo- 
stles and  elders  came  together,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Geneva,  Autho- 
rised.    "And  the  apostles  and  ancients  assembled,"   Rhemish  version. 

Tore  ebo^e  toIs  dTro(TT6Kois  Koi  rots  irpea-^VTepois  <tvv  oXtj  rfj  tK- 
K\T](ria.  Acts  XV.  22.  "Thanne  it  plesid  to  the  apostles  and  to  the 
elder  men  with  alle  the  chirche,"  WicUf.  "Then  pleased  it  the 
apostles  and  elders  with  the  whole  congregation,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer. 
"  Then  pleased  it  the  apostles  and  elders  with  the  whole  church," 
Geneva,  Authorised  version.  Ol 


244  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

*  The  later  tioii,*  and  of  the  apostles  and  elders."  Again,  "  The  apostles  and  elders 
"church."  came  together  to  reason  of  this  matter."  Again,  "  Then  pleased  it  the 
apostles  and  elders  with  the  whole  congregation  to  send,"  &c.  Again, 
"  The  apostles  and  elders  send  greeting,"  &c.  Again,  "  They  delivered 
them  the  decrees  for  to  keep,  that  were  ordained  of  the  apostles  and 
Acu  xvi.  elders."  If  in  all  these  places  they  had  translated  "  priests,"  as  indeed 
they  should  have  done  according  to  the  Greek  word,  it  had  then  disad- 
vantaged them  this  much,  that  men  would  have  thought  both  the  dignity 
of  priests  to  be  great,  and  also  their  authority  in  councils,  as  being  here 
joined  with  the  apostles,  to  be  greatly  reverenced  and  obeyed.  To  keep 
the  people  from  all  such  holy  and  reverent  cogitations  of  priests,  they 
put  "  elders,"  a  name  wherewith  our  holy  christian  forefathers'  ears  were 
never  acquainted  in  that  sense. 

FuLKE,  4.  FuTke.  In  all  those  places  by  you  rehearsed,  Acts  xv. 
and  xvi.,  your  own  vulgar  Latin  text  hath  senior es,  which  you 
had  rather  call  "  ancients"  (as  the  French  Protestants  call  the 
governors  of  their  churches,)  than  "  elders,"  as  we  do.  That 
popish  priests  should  have  any  dignity  or  authority  in 
councils,  we  do  flatly  deny :  but  that  the  seniors,  ancients, 
elders,  or  priests  (if  you  will)  of  the  New  Testament,  should 
have  as  much  dignity  and  authority  as  God's  word  doth 
afford  them,  we  desire  with  all  our  hearts.  That  "  our  christian 
forefathers'  ears  were  not  acquainted  with  the  name  of '  elders,'  " 
it  was  because  the  name  of  priest  in  their  time  sounded  ac- 
cording to  the  etymology,  and  not  according  to  the  cor- 
ruption of  the  papists:  otherwise  I  think  their  ears  were 
as  much  acquainted  with  the  name  of  "  elders,"  which  we  use, 
as  with  the  name  of  "  ancients,"  and  "  seniors,"  that  you 
have  newly  taken  up,  not  for  that  they  differ  in  signification 
from  elders,  but  because  you  would  differ  from  us. 

Ot    oTTooToXoi    KOI    01      TTpecT^iiTfpoi    KOI    ol     abeX<pol    rots    Kara    rfju 

'AvTioxfiav  Koi  2vpiav x"'/'^'"-     Acts  xv.  23.    "  ApostHs  and  elder 

britheren,"  Wiclif.  "The  apostles,  elders  and  brethren,  send  greet- 
ings," Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "The  apostles  and  the  elders  and  the  bre- 
thren send  greetings,"  Geneva.  "  The  apostles  and  elders  and  brethren," 
Authorised  version. 

■TTapedidovv  avrois  (pyXaaaeiv  ra  Soyixara  ra  K(Kpip.eva  vnb  rau 
dnocTToXojv  Koi  tmv  Tvpea-fdvrepMV  tcov  iv  'lepovaaXijfj..  Acts  xvi.  4. 
"  They  delivered  them  the  decrees  for  to  keep  ordained  of  the  apo- 
stles and  elders,"  Tyndale,  Geneva.  "They  dehvered  them  the  de- 
crees for  to  keep,  that  were  ordained  of  the  apostles  and  elders," 
Cranmer,  Authorised  version.] 


Martin.    But  let  us  go  forward.    We  have  heard  often  and  of  old  Martin,  5. 
time,  of  making  of  priests ;  and  of  late  years  also,  of  making  ministers ; 
but  did  ye  ever  hear  in  all  England  of  making  "elders"  ?    Yet  by  these 
men's  translations  it  hath  been  in  England  a  phrase  of  scripture  this 
thirty  year;  but  it  must  needs  be  very  strange,  that  this  making  of 
"elders"  hath  not  all  this  while  been  practised  and  known,  no,  not  among 
themselves  in  any  of  their  churches  within  the  realm  of  England.    To 
Titus  they  make  the  apostle  say  thus :  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Tit.  i. 
Creta,  that  thou  shouldst  ordain  elders  in  every  city,"  &c.    Again,  of 
Paul  and  Barnabas :    "  When  they  had  ordained  elders  by  election  in  tous  irpec- 
eveiy  congregation."  Acts  xiv.^     If  they  had  said  plainly,  as  it  is  in  the  pr^byteros. 
Greek,  and  as  our  forefathers  were  wont  to  speak,  and  the   truth  is, 
"  Titus  was  left  in  Creta  to  ordain  priests  in  every  city ;"  and,  "  Paxil 
and  Barnabas  made  priests  in  every  church ;"  then  the  people  would 
have  understood  them  :  they  know  such  speeches  of  old,  and  it  had  been 
their  joy  and  comfort  to  hear  it  specified  in  holy  scriptures.    Now  they 
are  told  another  thing,  in  such  newness  of  speeches  and  words,  of  "  elders" 
to  be  made  in  every  city  and  congregation,  and  yet  not  one  city  nor 
congregation  to  have  any  elders  in  all  England,  that  we  know  not  what 
is  profane  novelty  of  words,  which  the  apostle  willeth  to  be  avoided,  if  i  Tim.  vi. 
this  be  not  an  exceeding  profane  novelty.  • 

Fulke.  When  you  have  gotten  a  bauble,  you  make  more  Fulke,  6. 
of  it  than  of  the  Tower  of  London;  for  you  have  never  done 
playing  with  it.  It  must  needs  be  a  clerkly  argument  that 
is  drawn  from  the  vulgar  speeches  of  "making  priests,"  and 
"making  nmiisters."  Those  priests  or  ministers  that  are  made 
among  us,  are  the  same  "  elders"  that  the  scripture  in  Greek 
calleth  Trpe(x(ivTepovs,  and  the  bishop's  letters  of  orders,  testi- 
fying of  their  ordination,  caU  them  by  none  other  name,  but 
by  the  name  of  presbyteri,  wliich  the  scripture  useth  :  which 
term  though  in  Enghsh  you  sound  it  priests,  elders,  ancients, 
seniors,   or  ministers,    wliich  is  the  common  people's  word, 

p  KOI  KaTacrrrjCTTjs  Kara  ttoXiv  npta-^vTepovs.  Titus  i.  6.  "  And 
ordeyne  preetis  by  citees,"  Wiclif.  "And  shouldest  ordain  elders  in 
every  city,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  1639,  1662,  Bishops'  bible,  1614, 
Geneva ;  Authorised  version. 

XfipoTovqa-avTfs  8e  avTo7s  Trpea-^vrepovs  kot  fKKkT](riav.  Acts  xiv.  23. 
"Et  cum  constituissent  illis  per  singulas  ecclesias  presbyteros,"  Vulg. 
V.  22.  "And  whanne  thei  hadden  ordeyned  preestis  to  him  hi  alle 
citees,"  Wiclif.  "And  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  by  elec- 
tion in  every  congregation,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "And  when  they 
had  ordained  them  elders  by  election  in  every  church,"  Geneva. 
"And  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  in  every  church,"  Au- 
thorised version.] 

246  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

it  is  the  same  office  which  is  described  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
Tit.  i.,  and  in  other  places  of  scripture.  As  for  the  "profane 
novelty, "  wherewith  this  word  "  elder"  is  changed,  we  will  con- 
sider of  it  in  the  next  section. 

Martin  6.        Martin.    That  it  is  novelty  to  all  English  christian  ears,  it  is  evident. 

And  it  is  also  profane,  because  they  do  so  English  the  Greek  word  of 

veipoTo-      ordaining  (for  of  the  word  presbyter  we  will  speak  more  anon),  as  if 

veiv.  they  should  translate  Demosthenes  or  the  laws  of  Athens  concerning 

their  choosing  of  magistrates,  which  was  by  giving  voices  with  lifting 

up  their  hands.     So  they  do  force  this  word  here,  to  induce  the  people's 

election;   and  yet  in  their  churches  in  England  the  people  elect  not 

Xfi-poTovn-  ministers,  but  their  bishop.      Whereas  the  holy  scripture  saith,  they 

<raj/T«s        ordained  to  the  people ;  and  whatsoever  force  the  word  hath,  it  is  here 

spoken  of  the  apostles,  and  pertaineth  not  to  the  people ;  and  therefore 

KaTaarr,-    in  the  place  to  Titus  it  is  another  word  which  cannot  be  forced  further 

5ij"''j  than  to  "  ordain  and  appoint."    And  they  might  know,  if  malice  and 

heresy  would  suffer  them  to  see  and  confess  it,  that  the  holy  scriptures, 

and  fathers,   and  ecclesiastical  custom,  hath   drawn  this  and  the  like 

words  from  their  profane  and  common  signification  to  a  more  peculiar 

and  ecclesiastical  speech:   as  episcopus,  an   "overseer"  in  Tully,  is  a 

"bishop"  in  the  New  Testament. 

FuLKE,  6.  Fulke.  The  name  "  elders,"  used  in  our  translation,  is 
neither  more  novel  to  Enghsh  ears,  nor  more  profane  to 
godly  ears,  than  the  name  "  ancients,"  which  your  translation 
useth.  And  yet  I  think  the  apostle,  1  Tim,  vi.,  spake  not 
of  novelty  to  EngUsh  ears,  but  of  that  which  was  new  to 
the  ears  of  the  church  of  God.  But  the  word  "  elders"  (I 
ween)  must  be  profane,  because  we  "English  the  Greek  word 
of  ordaining,  as  if  we  should  translate  Demosthenes  or  the 
laws  of  Athens  concerning  the  choosing  of  magistrates."  Doth 
not  tliis  cavil  redound  more  against  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  accuse 
his  style  of  profaneness,  which  useth  the  same  words  for  the 
ordering  of  priests,  that  Demosthenes  or  the  laws  of  Athens 

p  XeipoTOV7](TavTfs  8e  avTois  irpea^vTepovs  Kar  eKKkrjaiav.  Acts  xiv.  23. 
"And  when  they  had  ordained  them  elders  by  election  in  every 
congregation,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "In  every  church,"  Bishops' 
bible,  Geneva,  Authorised  version.  "  Priests  in  every  church,"  Rhemish 

Kai  KaTa(TTq<Tr]s  Kara  ttoXiv  Trpecr^vTepovs.  Titus  i.  5.  "  Ordain 
ciders,"  all  the  versions,  except  the  Rhemish,  which  has,  "Ordain 

Vl.j  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THK    BIBLE.  247 

might  use  for  choosing  of  their  magistrates  ?  But  this  word 
we  "  enforce  (you  say)  to  induce  the  people's  election,  and  yet 
the  bishop,  not  the  people,  elect  our  ministers."  We  mean  not 
to  enforce  any  other  election  than  the  word  doth  signify. 
Neither  doth  our  bishops  (if  they  do  well)  ordain  any  ministers 
or  priests  without  the  testimony  of  the  people,  or  at  least- 
wise, of  such  as  be  of  most  credit  where  they  are  known. 
Where  you  urge  the  pronoun  avTo1<i,  "  to  them,"  as  though  the 
people  gave  no  consent  nor  testimony,  it  is  more  than  ridicu- 
lous; and  beside  that,  contrary  to  the  practice  of  the  primitive 
church  for  many  hundred  years  after  the  apostles  ;  as  also 
that  you  would  enforce  upon  the  words  KaTaarfjaat,  used  by 
St  Paul,  Tit.  i.,  as  though  that  word  of  "constitution"  did  ex- 
clude election.  That  the  word  yeiporov'ia  by  the  fathers  of 
the  church  since  the  apostles  hath  been  drawn  to  other  signi- 
fication than  it  had  before,  it  is  no  reason  to  teach  us  how 
it  was  used  by  the  apostles.  Election  is  an  indifferent  thing : 
the  election  of  bishops,  elders,  or  priests,  is  an  holy  thing, 
the  hohness  whereof  is  not  included  in  the  word  -^eipoTovelv, 
but  in  the  holy  institution  of  Christ,  and  authority  by  his 
appointment  delivered  by  imposition  of  the  hands  of  the 

Martin.   And  concerning  x^'P"''''"^'"'  which  we  now  speak  of,   St.  Martin,?. 
Jerome^  teileth  them  in  chap.  Iviii.  Esai.  that  it  signifieth  c/mcorwm  Greg. Nazian. 
ordinationem,  that  is,  "  giving  of  holy  orders,"  which  is  done  not  only  j  4  g  ?nf^d 
by  prayer  of  the  voice,  but  by  imposition  of  the  hand,  according  to  St  ti"  "^"u 
Paul  unto  Timothy,  manus  cito  nemini  imposueris,  "  Impose  or  put  hands  po^  vVipo- 
quickly  on  no  man  :"  that  is,  be  not  hasty  or  easy  to  give  holy  orders,  joviav,  and 
Where  these  great  etymologists,  that  so  strain  the  original  nature  of  this  IZ^'^poTo-^ 
word  to  profane  stretching  forth  the  hand  in  elections,    may  learn  1/1)6);.  ignat. 
another  ecclesiastical  etymology  thereof,  as  proper  and  as  well  deduced  o/'bishmis, 
of  the  word  as  the  other,  to  wit,  putting  forth  the  hand  to  give  orders  ;  /^«'^'^'5f"'- 

.1  I'll  ""''  'fpoi'/O- 

and  so  they  shall  find  it  is  all  one  with  that  which  the  apostle  calleth  yovai,  x"- 
"  imposition  of  hands,"    1  Tim.  iv.  2  Tim.  i. ;   and  consequently,  for  poTovov<7i, 

P  Plerique  nostrorum  xf*P'''''<'J'''a»'>  id  est,  ordinationem  clericorum, 
quse  non  solum  ad  imprecationem  vocis,  sed  ad  impositionem  impletur 
manus;  ne  scilicet,  ut  in  quibusdam  risimus,  vocis  imprecatio  clan- 
destina  clericos  ordinet  nescientes.  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Isaise 
c.  Iviii.    Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  432.] 

[3  Gregor.  Nazian.  Edit.  Paris.  Morell.  1630.  1.  6.  7.  The  titles 
quoted  are  from  1  and  7.] 

248  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

TO  van.  "ordaining  elders  by  election/'  they  should  have  said,  "ordaining  or 
er'/yeo-iT"'  ™^king  priests  by  imposition  of  hands ;"  as  elsewhere  St  Paul,  1  Tim.  v. 
Twv  xe*-  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  Acts  vi.  and  xiii.,  do  speak  in  the  ordain- 
'"""■  ing  of  the  seven  deacons,  and  of  St  Paul  and  Barnabas. 

FuLKE,  7.  FulJce.  The  testimony  of  St  Jerome,  whom  you  cite. 
In  isai.  iviii.  jQu  understand  not ;  for  speaking  there  of  the  extension  of 
the  finger,  which  the  Septuaginta  translate  -^^eiporoviav,  "  and 
God  requireth  to  be  taken  away,"  he  saith :  "  Many  of  our 
interpreters  do  understand  it  of  the  ordination  of  clerks, 
which  is  performed  not  only  at  the  imprecation  of  voice,  but 
also  at  the  imposition  of  hands,  lest  (as  we  have  laughed  at 
in  some  men)  the  secret  imprecation  of  the  voice  should 
ordain  clerks,  being  ignorant  thereof,"  And  so  proceedeth 
to  inveigh  against  the  abuse  of  them  that  would  ordain  clerks 
of  their  basest  officers  and  servitors,  yea,  at  the  request  of 
fooHsh  women.  By  wliich  it  is  manifest,  that  his  purpose  is 
not  to  teU  what  -^eipoTovla  properly  doth  signify,  but  that 
imposition  of  hands  is  required  in  lawful  ordination,  which 
many  did  understand  by  the  word  -^^eipoTovia,  although  in 
that  place  it  signified  no  such  matter.  And  therefore  you 
must  seek  further  authority  to  prove  your  ecclesiastical 
etymology,  that  -^eiporovia  signifieth  putting  forth  of  the 
hands  to  give  orders.  The  places  you  quote  in  the  margin, 
out  of  the  titles  of  Nazianzen's  sermons,  are  to  no  purpose, 
although  they  were  in  the  text  of  his  homihes.  For  it  ap- 
peareth  not,  although  by  synecdoche  the  whole  order  of 
making  clerks  were  called  -^eiporovia,  that  election  was  ex- 
cluded, where  there  was  ordination  by  imposition  of  hands. 
As  for  that  you  cite  out  of  Ignatius,  [it]  proveth  against  you, 
that  -^eipoTovelv  differeth  from  "  imposition  of  hands ;"  be- 
cause it  is  made  a  chstinct  office  from  -^eipoBeTelv,  that  signi- 
fieth  to  "  lay  on  hands " :  and  so  yeiporovia  and  eTrcOea-is 
TWV  -^eipuiv  by  your  own  author  do  differ. 

Martin,  8.  Martin.  But  they  are  so  profane  and  secular,  that  they  translate  the 
Greek  word  7^peo■^vTepos•  in  all  the  New  Testament,  as  if  it  had  the  old 
profane  signification  still,  and  were  indifferent  to  signify  the  "ancients  of 
the  Jews,"  "  the  senators  of  Rome,"  "  the  elders  of  Lacedaemonia,"  and 

Tous  7rp6(r.  "the  christian  clergy."  Insomuch  that  they  say,  "Paul  sent  to  Ephesus, 
and  called  the  elders  of  the  church,"  Acts  xx. ;  and  yet  they  were  such  as 


had  their  flocks  and  cure  of  souls,  as  followeth  in  the  same  place.    They 
make  St  Paul  speak  thus  to  Timothy :  "  Neglect  not  the  gift/'  (so  they  xapi<Tfia. 
had  rather  say  than  "gi-ace,"  lest  holy  orders  should  be  a  sacrament,)  1577. 
"given  thee  with  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  eldership,"  or,  "by  tou  irpeff- 
the  authority  of  the  eldership  ^"  1  Tim.  iv.    What  is  this  company  of  ^J;'^^pJ°^; 
"  eldership"  ?    Somewhat  they  would  say  like  to  the  apostle's  word ;  but 
they  will  not  speak  plainly,  lest  the  world  might  hear  out  of  the  scrip- 
tures, that  Timothy  was  made  priest  or  bishop  even  as  the  use  is  in  the 
catholic  church  at  this  day.     Let  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage  speak  can.  3.  in  the 
for  both  parts  indifferently,  and  tell  us  the  apostle's  meaning :  "  A  priest  Where  s".  Au- 
when  he  taketh  his  orders,   the  bishop  blessing  him  and  holding  his  ^|sent  and 
hand  upon  his  head,  let  all  the  priests  also  that  are  present  hold  their  subscnbed. 
hands  by  the  bishop's  hand  upon  his  head."     So  do  our  priests  at  this 
day,  when  a  bishop  maketh  priests ;  and  this  is  the  laying  on  of  the 
hands  of  the   company  of  priests,   which   St  Paul  speaketh  of,   and 
which  they  translate,    "the   company  of  the  eldership."     Only  their 
former  translation  of  1562  in  tliis  place  (by  what  chance  or  conside- 
ration we  know  not)   let  fall  out  of  the  pen,    "by  the  authority  of 

FulJce.  We  desire  not  to  be  more  holy  in  tlie  English  Fulke,  8. 
terms,  than  the  Holy  Ghost  was  in  the  Greek  terms :  whom 
if  it  pleased  to  use  such  a  word  as  is  indifferent  to  signify 
the  "  ancients  of  the  Jews,"  "  the  senators  of  Rome,"  "  the 
elders  of  Lacedaemonia,"  and  "  the  christian  clergy,"  why 
should  we  not  truly  translate  it  into  Enghsh  ? 

[^  Mj)  a/xeXet  roC  iv  (rot  x'^P'-^l^'^'''o^>  °  {8607]  aoi  Bia  Trpo(pTjTe'ias 
fiera  enideaeas  rav  x^ipav  rov  TTpeaj^vTepiov.  1  Tim.  iv.  14.  "Noli 
negligere  gratiam,  quae  in  te  est,  quse  data  est  tibi  per  prophetiam," 
Vulg.  "  The  grace  which  is  in  thee,"  Wiclif.  "  Despise  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  wliich  was  given  thee  through  prophecy,  and  with 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  an  elder,"  Tyndale,  1534.  "  Despise  not  the 
gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  through  prophecy,  with  the 
laying  on  of  hands  by  the  authority  of  the  priesthood,"  Cranmer, 
1539,  1562.  "Despise  not  that  gift  that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given 
thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  eldership," 
Geneva  Test.  1557.  "Despise  not  the  gift,  &c.  with  the  laying  on 
of  the  hands  of  the  company  of  the  eldership,"  Geneva  bible,  1560. 
"  Despise  not  the  gift,  &c.  with  the  laying  on  of  hands  by  the  au- 
thority of  the  eldership,"  Bishops'  bible,  1584.  "  Neglect  not  the 
grace  that  is  in  thee,  which  is  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  impo- 
sition of  the  hands  of  priesthood,"  Rheims.  1582.  "  Neglect  not  the  gift 
that  is  in  thee,  which  was  given  thee  by  prophecy,  with  the  laying 
on  of  the  hands  of  the  presbytery,"  Authorised  version.  "  Despise  not 
the  gift,"    Edit.  1570,  1568.] 

250  A    DEFKNCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

But  I  pray  you  in  good  sadness,  are  we  so  profane  and 
secular,  Acts  xx.,  in  calling  those  whom  Saint  Paul  sent  for 
out  of  Ephesus,  "elders"?  What  shall  we  say  then  of  the 
vulgar  Latin  text,  which  calleth  them  majores  natu,  as 
though  they  obtained  that  degree  by  years,  rather  than  by 
anything  else  ?  And  why  do  you  so  profanely  and  secularly 
call  them  the  "  ancients  of  the  church  "?  Is  there  more  pro- 
faneness  and  secularity  in  the  EngUsh  word  "elders,"  than  in 
the  Latin  word  majores  natu,  or  in  your  French-English 
term,  "ancients"?  Surely  you  do  nothing  but  play  with  the 
noses  of  such  as  be  ignorant  in  the  tongues,  and  can  perceive 
no  similitude  or  difference  of  these  words,  but  by  the  sound 
of  their  ears.  But  now  for  the  word  irpecrfivTeptov,  used  by 
St  Paul,  1  Tim.  iv,,  which  we  call  the  "  eldersliip,"  or  "  the 
company  of  elders,"  I  have  shewed  before,  how  it  is  used  by 
St  Luke  in  his  gospel,  chap,  xxii.,  and  Acts  xxii.  You  say, 
we  "will  not  speak  plainly,  lest  the  world  should  hear  that 
Timothy  was  made  priest  or  bishop  even  as  the  use  is  in 
the  catholic  church  at  this  day."  And  then  you  tell  us,  out 
of  the  council  of  Carthage,  4  chap,  that  all  the  priests  present 
should  lay  their  hands  on  the  head  of  him  that  is  ordained, 
together  with  the  bishop.  We  know  it  well,  and  it  is  used 
in  the  church  of  England  at  this  day.  Only  the  term  of 
"  eldership"  displeaseth  you,  when  we  mean  thereby  the  com- 
pany of  elders.  But  whereas  the  translators  of  the  bible, 
1562,  called  it  "  priesthood,"  either  by  priesthood  they  meant 
the  same  that  we  do  by  "  eldership ;"  or  if  they  meant  by 
"priesthood"  the  office  of  priests,  or  elders,  they  were  de- 
ceived. For  irpea^vrepiov  signifieth  "  a  company  of  elders," 
as  it  is  twice  used  by  St  Luke,  and  oftentimes  by  the  ancient 
writers  of  the  church,  both  Greeks  and  Latins. 

Martin,  9.        Martin.     Otherwise  in  all  their  Enghsh  bibles  all  the   bells  ring 
one  note^,  as,  "  The  elders  that  rule  well  are  worthy  of  double  honour." 

n  Oi  KaXws  Tvpofcrrarfs  irpfcrfBvTepoi  dinXrjs  ripfjs  a^iovcrdaxrav. 
1  Tim.  v.  17.  "Qui  bene  praesunt  presbyteri,  duplici  honore  digni  ha- 
beantur,"  Vulg.  "The  elders  that  rule  well  are  worthy  of  double 
honour,"  Tyndale,  1534,  Cranmer,  1539,  1562;  Bishops'  bible,  1584, 
Geneva,  1560.  "  Let  the  elders  that  rule  well  be  counted  worthy  of  double 
honour,"  Authorised  version.  "  The  priests  that  rule  well,  let  them  be 
esteemed  worthy  of  double  honour,"     Rheims. 


And,  "  Against  an  elder  receive  no  accusation,  but  under  two  or  three 
witnesses,"  1  Tim.  v.    And,  "  If  any  be  diseased  among  you,  let  him  Toviirpetr- 
call  for  the  elders  of   the  church,  and  let  them  pray  over  him,  and  ^j^^^^°^^n- 
anoint  him  with  oil,"  &c.   Jacob,  v.    Whereas  St  Chrysostom  out  of  o-i'us. 
this  place   proveth  the  high  dignity  of  priests  in  remitting  sins,  in  his  sacerdotio. 
book   entitled,  "  Of  Priesthood,"  unless  they  will  translate  that  title  irepl  lepw- 
also,  "  Of  Eldership."    Again,  they  make  St  Peter  say  thus :  "  The  elders  <^'''")«- 
which  are  among  you  I  exhort,  which  am  also  an  elder,  feed  ye  Clirist's 
flock,  as  much  as  lieth  in  you,"  &c.  1  Pet.  v. 

FulJce.  In  these  three  texts  you  triumph  not  a  little,  Fulke,  9. 
because  your  vulgar  Latin  text  hath  the  Greek  word  pres- 
byter. "The  high  dignity  of  priests,  or  elders,  in  remitting 
sins,"  we  acknowledge  with  Chrysostom,  in  liis  book  entitled 
"  Of  Priesthood :"  which  seeing  it  is  TrejoJ  \ep(aavvr}<i,  we  will 
never  translate  "  eldersliip."  But  we  may  lawfully  wish,  that 
both  Chrysostom  and  other  ancient  writers  had  kept  that 
distinction  of  terms,  which  the  apostles  and  evangehsts  did  so 
precisely  observe.  In  the  last  text,  1  Pet.  v.,  your  vulgar  Latin 
saith,  seniores  and  consenior,  yourselves  in  English,  "  seniors," 
and  "  fellow  senior^"  What  trespass  then  have  we  committed, 
in  saying  "  elders,"  and  "  fellow  elder,"  or  an  elder  also  ? 

Martin.    Where  if  they  will  tell  us,  as  also  in  certain  other  places,  Martin, 
that  our  Latin  translation  hath  seniores,  and  majores  natu :    we  tell 
them,  as  heretofore  we  have  told  them,  that  this  is  nothing  to  them,  s.  Hierom 

'  J  o  >  readeth, 

who  profess  to  translate  the  Greek.    Again  we  say,  that  if  they  meant  Presbyteros 

6£0  cornpr6S- 

no  worse  than  the  old  Latin  translator  did,  they  woiild  be  as  indifferent  byter,  £p.  85. 
as  he  to  have  said  sometime  "  priests"  and  "  priesthood,"  when  he  hath  fn  i.  ad^oai. 

proving  the 

Kara  irpea^vrepov  KaTTjyoplav  fiTj  7rapaSe;^ov.  1  Tim.  v.  19.  "  Ad- 
versus  presbyterum  accusationem  noli  recipere,"  Vulg.  "  Against  an 
elder  receive  none  accusation,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Bishops'  bible, 
Geneva,  Authorised  version.  "  Against  a  priest  receive  not  accusation," 
Wiclif,  Rheims. 

TrpocrKaXfaaadco  tovs  Trptcr^vTepovs  ttjs  eKKKTjcrias.  James  v.  14. 
"Inducat  presbyteros  ecclesiae,"  Vulg.  "Let  him  call  for  the  elders 
of  the  congregation,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer.  "  Let  him  call  for  the  elders 
of  the  chiu'ch,"  Geneva,  Bishops' bible,  1584.  Authorised  version.  "Let 
him  bring  in  the  priests  of  the  church,"  Rheims.  Upea-^vrepovs  roiis 
iv  vfiiv  TrapaKoXu)  6  (rvp.7rpecr^vT€pos.  1  Pet.  v.  1.  "  Seniores  ergo,  qui  in 
vobis  sunt,  obsecro,  consenior,"  Vulg.  "  The  elders  which  are  among 
you,  I  exhort,  which  am  also  an  elder,"  Tyndale,  Cranmer,  Bishops' 
bible,  Geneva,  Authorised  version.  "  The  seniors  therefore  that  are  among 
you,  I  beseech,  myself  a  fellow  senior  with  them,"    Rheims,  1582.3 




dignity  of 
priests ;  and 
yet  in  Gal.  iv. 
he  readeth 
according  to 
the  vulgar 
Latin  text, 
Seniores  in 
vobis  rogo 
consenior  et 
ipse.  Where- 
by it  is  evi- 
dent, that  se- 
nior here,  and 
in  the  Acts, 
is  a  priest, 
and  not  con- 
trary, pres- 
byter, an 

the  words  presbyteros  and  presbyterium ;  as  we  are  indifferent  in  our 
translation,  saying  "  seniors"  and  "  ancients,"  when  we  find  it  so  in  our 
Latin;  being  well  assured  that  by  sundry  words  he  meant  but  one 
thmg,  as  in  Greek  it  is  but  one,  and  as  both  Erasmus  and  also  Beza 
himself  always  translate  it,  keeping  the  name  presbyter  and  presbyteri ; 
of  whom  by  reason  they  should  have  learned,  rather  than  of  our  Latin 
translator,  whom  otherwise  they  condemn.  And  if  they  say  they  do 
follow  them,  and  not  him,  because  they  translate  not  senior  and 
major  natu,  but  the  word  presbyter,  or  Trpea^vrepos,  an  " elder,"  in  all 
places ;  we  tell  them,  and  herein  we  convent  their  conscience,  that  they 
do  it  to  take  away  the  external  priesthood  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
to  suppress  the  name  "  priest,"  against  the  ecclesiastical,  and  (as  now 
since  Christ)  veiy  proper  and  usual  signification  thereof,  in  the  New 
Testament,  councils,  and  fathers,  in  all  common  writing  and  speaking ; 
specially  the  Latin  presbyter,  which  grew  to  this  signification  out  of  the 
Greek,  in  the  foresaid  places  of  holy  scripture. 


Fulke.  I  have  told  you  already,  and  you  could  not  but 
know  that  it  should  be  told  you,  that  seemg  we  translate 
none  otherwise  than  your  vulgar  Latin  translator,  we  are 
no  more  to  be  blamed  of  falsehood,  corruption,  profaneness, 
novelty,  than  he  is,  who  professed  to  translate  the  Greek 
as  much  as  we  do.  But  if  we  had  meant  no  worse  (say  you) 
than  he,  we  would  have  been  as  indifferent  to  have  said  some- 
times "  priest"  and  "  priesthood,"  where  he  hath  the  word 
presbyteros  and  presbyterium.  I  answer,  presbyterium  he 
hath  but  once,  and  for  that  you  have  "  priesthood"  once,  as  you 
confessed  before.  And  if  the  name  "  priest"  were  of  the  same 
understanding  in  common  Enghsh  that  the  word  presbyter 
is,  from  whence  it  is  derived,  we  would  never  have  sought 
more  words  for  it,  than  we  do  for  the  words  "bishop,"  "dea- 
con," and  such  like. 

The  words  presbyter  and  presbyterium  you  confess 
that  Beza  doth  always  use :  and  so  do  we,  when  we  write 
or  speak  Latin ;  but  we  cannot  use  them  in  Enghsh,  except 
we  should  be  as  fond  as  you  in  your  gratis,  depositum,  and 
such  fantasies.  And  to  tell  you  plauily,  as  om*  conscience 
beareth  us  witness,  we  will  never  dissemble,  that  we  avoid 
that  word  "'  priest,"  as  it  is  used  to  signify  a  sacrificer,  because 
we  would  shew  a  perfect  distinction  between  the  priesthood 
of  the  law  and  the  ministry  of  the  gospel,  between  sacerdos 
and  presbyter,  a  sacrificer  and  a  governor  of  the  church. 
And  I  appeal  to  your  own  conscience,  whether,  if  the  English 


word  "  priest"  were  as  indifferent  as  presbyter,  and  sounded 
no  more  towards  a  sacrifice  than  either  presbyter  or  your  own 
English  words  "  ancient"  and  "  senior,"  whether  (I  say)  you 
would  make  so  much  ado  about  it,  for  to  have  it  in  all  places 
of  the  New  Testament,  where  Trpea^vrepo's  is  in  the  Greek  ? 
But  seeing  yoiu*  popish  sacrificing  power,  and  blasphemous 
sacrifice  of  your  mass,  hath  no  manner  ground  at  all  in  the 
holy  scriptures,  either  in  the  original  Greek,  or  in  your  own 
Latin  translation,  you  are  driven  to  seek  a  silly  shadow  for 
it  in  the  abusive  acception  and  sounding  of  the  English  word 
"  priest"  and  "  priesthood."  And  therefore  you  do,  in  the 
second  section  of  tliis  chapter,  in  great  earnest  affirm,  that 
"  priest,  sacrifice,  and  altar"  are  dependents,  and  consequents, 
one  of  another,  so  that  they  cannot  be  separated.  If  you  should 
say  in  Latin  sacerdos,  sacrificium,  altare,  or  in  Greek  Upevt;, 
Ova'ia  r]  'Trpocrcpopa,  Kal  Ouaiao'T^piov  be  such  consequents, 
we  will  also  subscribe  unto  you :  but  if  you  will  change  the 
word,  and  say  presbyter,  sacrificium,  altare,  or  irpea^vTc- 
po9,  Ouar'ia,  OvaiaaTtjpiov,  every  learned  man's  ears  will  glow, 
to  hear  you  say  they  are  dependents  and  consequents  in- 
separable. Therefore  we  must  needs  cHstinguish  of  the  word 
"  priest"  in  your  corollary  :  for  [if]  you  mean  thereby  sacerdo- 
tem,  we  grant  the  consequence  of  sacrifice  and  altar ;  but 
if  you  mean  presbyterium  \j)resbyterimi],  we  deny  that  ever 
God  joined  those  three  in  an  unseparable  band ;  or  that 
presbyter,  in  that  he  is  presbyter,  hath  any  thing  to  do 
with  sacrifice  or  altar,  more  than  senior,  or  major  natu,  or 
ancient,  or  elder. 

Martin.    Insomuch  that  immediately  in  the  first  canons  and  councils  Martin, 
of  the  apostles  and  their  successors,  nothing  is  more  common  than  this 
distinction  of  ecclesiastical  degrees  and  names,  si  episcopiis,  vel  presbyter,  ApstXonc.i. 
vel  diaconus^,  &c. :  "  If  any  bishop,  or  priest,  or  deacon"  do  this  or  that,  i^at^conc. 
Which  if  the  protestants  or  Calvinists  will  translate  after  their  manner  [^^^'pet '  v^^ 
thus,  "  If  a  bishop,  or  elder,  or  deacon,"  &c.,  they  do  against  themselves, 
which  make  presbyter  or  "  elder"  a  common  name  to  all  ecclesiastical 
persons,  and  not  a  peculiar  degree  next  unto  a  bishop.     So  that  either 
they  must  condemn  all  antiquity  for  placing  presbyter  in  the  second 
degree  after  a  bishop;  or  they  must  translate  it  "priest,"  as  we  do;  or 
they  must  make  "elder"  to  be  their  second  degree,  and  so  put  "minister" 
out  of  place. 

[^  Aut,  not  vel,  in  Labbe,  Vol.  i,  p.  52.] 





Fulke.  The  distinction  of  episcopus  and  presbyter  to 
signify  several  offices,  we  grant  to  be  of  great  antiquity ; 
albeit  we  may  not  admit  the  counterfeit  canons  of  the  apostles, 
nor  the  epistles  of  Ignatius,  for  such  men's  writings  as  they 
bear  the  name  to  be.  We  make  presbyter,  or  "  elder,"  a 
common  name  to  all  ecclesiastical  persons,  none  otherwise  than 
you  do  this  word  "  priest :"  for  deacons  with  us  are  not 
called  presbyteri,  or  "  elders."  As  for  the  distinction  of 
bishops'  and  elders'  names,  which  the  scripture  taketh  for  the 
same,  doth  no  more  "  condemn  all  antiquity"  in  us,  than  in  you, 
who  acknowledge  that  the  scripture  useth  those  names  with- 
out distinction,  in  your  note  upon  Acts  xx.  v.  28,  where  they 
are  called  "  bishops,"  which  before,  v.  17,  are  called  irpeal^u- 
^epoi,  which  you  translate  "ancients,"  and  expound  "priests;" 
and  thus  you  write :  "  Bishops  or  priests  (for  those  names 
were  sometimes  used  indifferently),  governors  of  the  church 
of  God,  and  placed  in  that  room  and  high  function  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."  But  it  seemeth  you  have  small  regard  to 
defend  your  own  notes,  so  you  might  find  occasion  to  quarrel 
at  our  words. 



S.  Tim.  iii. 
Bib.  1577. 


Martin.  And  here  we  must  ask  them,  how  this  name  "minister" 
came  to  be  a  degree  distinct  from  a  deacon,  whereas  by  their  own  rule 
of  translation,  "deacon"  is  nothing  else  but  a  "minister;"  and  why- 
keep  they  the  old  and  usual  ecclesiastical  name  of  "  deacon"  in  trans- 
lating diaconus,  and  not  the  name  of  "  priest"  in  translating  presbyter  ? 
Doth  not  "  priest"  come  of  presbyter  as  certainly  and  as  agreeably  as 
"deacon"  of  diaconus?  Doth  not  also  the  French  and  Italian  word 
for  "priest"  come  directly  from  the  same?  "Will  you  always  follow 
fancy  and  not  reason,  do  what  you  list,  translate  as  you  list,  and  not  as 
the  truth  is,  and  that  in  the  holy  scriptures,  which  you  boast  and  vaunt 
so  much  of  ?  Because  yourselves  have  them  whom  you  call  bishops,  the 
name  "  bishops"  is  in  your  English  bibles ;  which  otherwise  by  your 
own  rule  of  translation  should  be  called  an  "overseer"  or  "superin- 
tendent :"  likewise  "  deacon"  you  are  content  to  use  as  an  ecclesiastical 
word  so  used  in  antiquity,  because  you  also  have  those  whom  you  call 
"deacons."  Only  "priests"  must  be  turned  contemptuously  out  of  the 
text  of  the  holy  scriptures,  and  "  elders"  put  in  their  place,  because 
you  have  no  priests,  nor  will  none  of  them,  and  because  that  is  in  con- 
troversy between  us.  And  as  for  elders,  you  have  none  permitted  in 
England,  for  fear  of  overthrowing  your  bishops'  office  and  the  Queen's 
supreme  government  in  all  spiritual  things  and  causes.  Is  not  this  to 
follow  the  humour  of  your  heresy,  by  Machiavel's  politic  rules,  without 
any  fear  of  God  ? 


Fulke.  Here  I  must  answer  you,  that  we  have  no  Fulke, 
degree  of  ministers  distinct  from  deacons,  but  by  vulgar  and  12. 
popular  use  of  speaking,  which  we  are  not  curious  to  control. 
Otherwise,  in  truth,  we  account  bishops,  elders,  and  deacons, 
all  ministers  of  the  church.  It  is  no  more,  therefore,  but 
the  common  speech  of  men,  which  useth  that  word,  which  is 
common  to  all  ecclesiastical  persons,  as  peculiar  to  the  elders, 
or  priests.  Why  we  keep  the  name  of  "  deacons"  in  translating 
diaconus,  rather  than  of  "  priests"  in  translating  presbyter, 
I  have  told  you  often  before.  The  name  "  priest"  being  by 
long  abuse  of  speech  apphed  to  signify  sacrificers  of  the  Old 
Testament,  called  'lepfi^,  we  could  not  give  the  same  name 
to  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament,  except  we  had  some 
other  name,  whereby  to  call  the  ministers  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment :  wherein  we  follow  reason,  and  not  fancy ;  for  it  is 
great  reason  we  should  retain  that  difference  in  names  of 
the  ministers  of  both  the  testaments,  wliich  the  Holy  Ghost 
doth  always  observe.  But  you  follow  fancy  altogether, 
imagining  that  "  priests"  only  are  put  out  of  the  text,  because 
we  have  no  priests :  whereas  we  have  priests  as  well  as  we 
have  bishops  and  deacons ;  and  so  they  are  called  in  our  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  indifferently  "  priests,"  or  "  ministers." 
And  where  you  say,  we  "have  no  elders  permitted  in  England," 
it  is  false  ;  for  those  that  are  commonly  called  bishops,  ministers, 
or  priests  among  us,  be  such  "  elders"  as  the  scripture  com- 
mendeth  unto  us.  And  although  we  have  not  such  a  con- 
sistory of  elders  of  government,  as  in  the  primitive  church 
they  had,  and  many  churches  at  this  day  have ;  yet  have 
we  also  elders  of  government  to  exercise  discipline,  as  arch- 
bishops, and  bishops,  with  their  chancellors,  archdeacons, 
commissaries,  officials ;  in  whom  if  any  defect  be,  we  wish 
it  may  be  reformed  according  to  the  word  of  God. 

Martin.    "Apostles"  you  say  for  the  most  part  in  your  translations  (not  Martin, 
always),  as  we  do, and  " prophets,"  and  "evangelists,"  and  "angels,"  and  ^^• 
such  like ;  and  wheresoever  there  is  no  matter  of  controversy  between  you 
and  us,  there  you  can  plead  very  gravely  for  keeping  the  ancient  ecclesias- 
tical words ;  as  your  master  Beza,  for  example,  beside  many  other  places  Beza  in  cap. 
where  he  bitterly  rebuketh  his  fellow  Castaleon's  translation,  in  one  place  25,  &e. 
writeth  thus :  "  I  cannot  in  this  place  dissemble  the  boldness  of  certain  jn  3"Sp. ' 
men,  which  would  God  it  rested  within  the  compass  of  words  only !  ^^^^'  '^"™' 
These  men  therefore,  concerning  the  word  baptizing,  though  used  of  Baptize. 






sacred  writers  in  the  mystery  or  sacrament  of  the  new  testament,  and 
for  so  many  years  after,  by  the  secret  consent  of  all  churches,  consecrated 
to  this  one  sacrament,  so  that  it  is  now  grown  into  the  vulgar  speeches 
almost  of  all  nations,  yet  they  dare  presume  rashly  to  change  it,  and  in 
place  thereof  to  use  the  word  "  washing."  Delicate  men  forsooth,  which 
neither  are  moved  with  the  perpetual  authority  of  so  many  ages,  nor  by 
the  daily  custom  of  the  vulgar  speech  can  be  brought  to  think  that 
lawful  for  divines,  which  aU  men  grant  to  other  masters  and  professors  of 
arts ;  that  is,  to  retain  and  hold  that  as  their  own,  which  by  long  use  and 
in  good  faith  they  have  truly  possessed.  Neither  may  they  pretend  the 
authority  of  some  ancient  writers,  as  that  Cyprian  saith  tingentes 
for  baptizantes,  and  Tertullian  in  a  certain  place  calleth  sequestrem 
for  mediatorem.  For  that  which  was  to  those  ancients  as  it  were  new, 
to  us  is  old :  and  even  then,  that  the  selfsame  words  which  we  now  use 
were  familiar  to  the  church,  it  is  evident,  because  it  is  very  seldom  that 
they  speak  otherwise.  But  these  men  by  this  novelty  seek  after  vain 
glory,"  &c. 



Fulke.  If  in  any  place  we  use  not  tlie  name  of  the 
"apostles,"  "prophets,"  "evangelists,"  "angels,"  and  such  like, 
we  are  able  to  give  as  sufficient  a  reason  why  we  translate 
those  words  according  to  their  general  signification,  as  you 
for  translating  sometime  baptismata,  "washings,"  and  not  bap- 
tisms ;  ecclesia  "  the  assembly,"  and  not  the  church,  with  such 
like.  Therefore  as  Castaleo  and  such  other  heretics  are 
justly  reprehended  by  Beza  for  leaving  (without  cause)  the 
usual  ecclesiastical  terms ;  so  when  good  cause  or  necessity 
requireth  not  to  use  them,  it  were  superstition,  yea,  and 
almost  madness  sometimes,  in  translating  to  use  them ;  as 
to  call  the  Pharisees'  washings  "  baptisms,"  or  the  assembly 
of  the  Ephesian  idolaters  "  the  church  ;"  yet  both  in  Greek  and 
Latin  the  words  are  baptismata,  ecclesia. 


Confut.  of 
the  Keas. 
fol.  35. 

Martin.  He  speaketh  against  Castaleon,  who  in  his  new  Latin  trans- 
lation of  the  bible  changed  all  ecclesiastical  words  into  profane  and 
heathenish  ;  as  angelos  into  genios,  prophetas  into  fatidicos,  templum  into 
fanum,  and  so  forth.  But  that  which  he  did  for  foolish  affectation  of 
fineness  and  style,  do  not  our  English  Calvinists  the  very  same,  when  they 
list,  for  furthering  their  heresies  ?  When  the  holy  scripture  saith  "  idols," 
according  as  Christians  have  always  understood  it,  for  false  gods,  they 
come  and  tell  us  out  of  Homer  and  the  lexicons,  that  it  may  signify  an 
image,  and  therefore  so  they  translate  it.  Do  they  not  the  like  in  the 
Greek  word  that  by  ecclesiastical  use  signifieth  "  penance,"  and  "  doing 
penance,"  when  they  argue  out  of  Plutarch,  and  by  the  profane  sense 
thereof,  that  it  is  nothing  else  but  changing  of  the  mind  or  amendment 


of  life  ?  Whereas  in  the  Greek  church  paenitentes,  that  is,  they  that 
were  in  the  course  of  penance,  and  excluded  from  the  church,  as 
catechumeni  and  energumeni,  till  they  had  accomplished  their  penance, 
the  very  same  are  called  in  the  Greek  oi  iv  fifravoia  ovrts. 

Fulke.    That  Castaleo  "  did  for  foolish  affectation  of  fine-  Fulke, 
ness,"  you  slander  us  to  do  "for  furtheriner  of  heresy."    And 

'^    .  .  1  Dionys.  Ec. 

here  again  with  loathsomeness  you  repeat  your  rotten  quarrel  Hier.  cap.  3. 
of  idols  translated  "  images,"  wliich  was  to  discover  youi'  abo- 
minable idolatry,  cloaked  under  a  blind  and  false  distinction 
of  images  and  idols.  The  word  fxeravoia  we  translate  "re- 
pentance ;"  as  you  do  sometimes,  when  you  cannot  for  shame 
use  your  popish  term  "  penance,"  by  which  you  understand 
satisfaction  for  sin,  wliich  in  divers  places  you  are  enforced  to 
give  over  in  the  plain  field,  and  to  use  the  term  "repentance;" 
as  in  the  fifth  of  the  Acts^ :  "This  Prince  and  Saviour  God 
hath  exalted  with  his  right  hand  to  give  repentance  to  Israel 
and  remission  of  sins^ ;"  likewise  Acts  xi.,  where  the  scripture 
speaketh  of  God  giving  "repentance  to  the  gentiles."  And 
when  you  speak  of  Judas,  you  say  also  "  repentmg  him^ :"  so 
that  the  repentance  of  Judas,  and  that  which  God  gave  to 
Israel  and  to  the  gentiles,  is  uttered  in  one  term ;  whereas 
else  you  have  ahnost  everywhere  "penance,"  and  "doing  of 
penance."  Wliere  you  say  we  make  repentance  nothing  but 
changing  of  the  mind,  or  amendment  of  life,  you  speak  mi- 
truly ;  for  not  every  changing  of  the  mind  is  godly  repent- 
ance, neither  is  only  amendment  of  life  all  repentance  :  but 
there  must  be  contrition  and  sorrow  for  the  life  past.  That 
in  the  Greek  chm'ch  they  that  were  catechumeni,  and  ener- 

[}  Martin  appears  to  have  had  the  following  passage  of  the  19th 
Canon  of  the  Council  of  Laodicea  in  liis  mind,  when  he  wrote  this: 

"  Mera  to  i^iKBfiv  tovs  Karrj^ovnevovs,  raiv  iv  fieravoia  ttjv  (V)(riv  yiveadai. 
Quibus  (catechumenis)  egressis,  orent  etiam  hi  qui  in  poenitentia  sunt 
constituti."    £d.  1559.  p.  34.] 

P  bovvai  fieravoLav  ra  'icrparjX  koI  acjyea-tv  afiapnSv,  Acts  V.  31.  "  To 
give  repentance  to  Israel  and  remission  of  sins,"  Rhemish  Version,  1582.] 

P  "Apaye  Kol  toIs  edveaiv  6  Qebs  ttjv  peravoiav  ebaiKev  els  C^rjv, 
Acts  xi.  18.  "God  then  to  the  Gentiles  also  hath  given  repentance 
unto  life,"  Rhemish  version,  1582.]] 

Q*  oTi  KareKpidt],  neTap.e\r]de\s,  Matt,  xxvii.  "Seeing  that  he  was 
condemned,  repenting  himself,"  Rhemish  version.] 

[fulke. J 

258  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

gumeni,  were  called  ev  tieravoiq.  oi/res,  "  such  as  are  in  re- 
pentance," it  maketli  nothing  against  the  true  use  of  the  Greek 
word,  as  it  is  used  in  the  scriptures.  We  know  the  discipline 
of  the  chiu'ch  appointed  an  outward  exercise  of  praying,  fast- 
ing, and  other  humbling,  for  a  trial  and  testimony  of  true 
and  hearty  repentance,  which  was  sometimes  called  by  the 
name  of  repentance  by  a  metonymia  signi ;  which  he  that  wiU 
enforce  by  that  name  to  be  parts  of  true  and  inward  re- 
pentance, is  as  wise  as  he  that  wiU  contend  the  ivy-bush  to 
be  a  part  of  wine,  because  some  men,  seeing  it  hang  over  the 
house,  will  say,  Lo,  here  is  wine. 

Martin,  Martin.    They  therefore  leaving  this  ecclesiastical  signification,  and 

■'^'  translating  it  according  to  Plutarch,  do  they  not  much  like  to  Castaleo  ? 

Do  they  not  the  same  against  the  famous  and  ancient  distinction  of 
Latria.  latria  and  duUa,  when  they  tell  us  out  of  Eustathius  upon  Homer,  and 

Bez'rin  4.  Aristophaues  the  grammarian,  that  these  two  are  all  one  ?  Wliereas  we 
Mat.  num.  10.  ppove  out  of  St  Augustine'  in  many  places,  the  second  council  of  Nice, 
and  Xa-  Venerable  Bede,  and  the  long  custom  of  the  church,  that  according  to 
^riptures 'ai^  *^^  ccclesiastical  sense  and  use  deduced  out  of  the  scriptures  they  differ 
Jj^o^t  always   yery  much.    Do  they  not  the  like  in  mysterium  and  sacramentum,  which 

service  and 
honour  pro- 
per to  God, 

civit^Deifii.  {}  Hic  est  euim  divinitati  vel,  si  expressius  dicendum  est,  deitati 
debitus  cultus,  propter  quem  uno  verbo  significandum  quoniam  mihi 
satis  idoneum  non  occurrit  Latinum,  Graeco  ubi  necesse  est  insinuo  quid 
velim  dicere.  Aarpeiav  quippe  nostri,  ubicumque  sanctarum  scrip- 
turarum  positum  est,  interpretati  sunt  servitutem.  Sed  ea  servitus,  quae 
debetur  hominibus,  secundum  quam  praecepit  apostolus  servos  dominis 
suis  subditos  esse  debere,  alio  nomine  Greece  nuncupari  solet :  '^arpfia 
vero,  secundum  consuetudinem  qua  locuti  sunt  qui  nobis  divina  eloquia 
condiderimt,  aut  semper,  aut  tam  frequenter  ut  paene  semper,  ea  dicitur 
servitus  quae  pertinet  ad  colendum  Deum.  Augustini  de  Civitate  Dei, 
Lib.  X.  c.  i.  Opera,  Vol.  vii.  p.  381.] 

\y  Upon  the  33rd  verse  of  the  23rd  chapter  of  Exodus,  Augustine 
thus  speaks  :  Hic  Graecus  BovXevajjs  habet,  non  'Xarpeva-rjs.  Unde  intelli- 
gitur,  quia  et  BovXtia  debetur  Deo  tanquam  Domino,  Xarpeia  vero  non- 
nisi  Deo  tanquam  Deo.  Quaestiones  in  Exodum.  xciv.  Opera,  Vol.  iii. 
p.  711. 

This  distinction  between  the  two  words  is  frequently  alluded  to 
by  Augustine:  for  instance,  in  his  treatise  against  the  sei-mon  of  the 
Arians,  he  says,  "  Et  tamen,  si  apertissime  legerent  in  Sanctis  scripturis 
Salomonem  regem  lignis  et  lapidibus  jussu  Dei  templum  struxisse  Spi- 
ritui  Sancto,  Deum  esse  Spiritum  Sanctum  dubitare  non  possent,  cui 
tanta  religionis  servitus,  quae  latria  dicitur,  legitime  exhiberetur   in 

c.  1. 


they  translate  a  secret  in  the  profane  sense;  whereas  they  know  how  these  Bib.  an.  isea. 

words  are  otherwise  taken,  both  in  Greek  and  Latin,  in  the  church  of 

God  ?    Did  they  not  the  like  in  the  word  ecdesia,  when  they  translated 

it  nothing  else  but  "congregation"?     Do  they  not  the  like  in  x^'-P°'^'^v''-'^> 

which  they  translate,  ordaining  by  election,  as  it  was  in  the  profane  court 

of  Athens;  whereas  St  Hierom  telleth  them,  that  ecclesiastical  writers 

take  it  for  giving  holy  orders  by  imposition  of  hands  ?     Do  they  not  the 

like  in  many  other  words,  wheresoever  it  serveth  their  heretical  purpose? 

And  as  for  profane  translation,  is  there  any  more  profane  than  Beza 

himself,  that  so  often  in  his  annotations  reprehendeth  the  old  translation 

by  the  authority  of  Tully  and  Terence,  Homer  and  Aristophanes,  and 

the  like  profane  authors  ?  yea,  so  fondly  and  childishly,  that  for  olfactum, 

which  Erasmus  useth,  as  Pliny's  word,  he  will  needs  say  odoratum, 

because  it  is  Tally's  word, 

Fulke.  In  translating  the  scripture,  we  use  the  word  "  re-  Fulke, 
pentance"  in  the  same  signification  that  the  scripture  useth  ■^^■ 
lJi€Tavoia.  In  other  ecclesiastical  writers,  we  can  neverthe- 
less understand  it  as  they  mean  it.  Concerning  that  un- 
learned distinction  of  latria  and  dulia,  we  do  rightly  to  shew 
out  of  profane  writers  that  it  is  vain,  and  that  the  terms 
signify  all  one ;  and  you  yourself  confess  in  your  marginal 
note,  that  sometimes  in  the  scriptm*e  Xarpevco  and  Xarpeia 

populo  Dei,  ut  illi  etiam  tern  plum  fabricaretur;  cum  Dominus  dicat, 
Dominum  Deum  tuum  adorabis,  et  illi  soli  servies:  quod  in  Graeco  est, 
XaTpevcreis."  Cap.  XX.  also  ca:p.  xxix.  Opera,  Vol.  viii.  pp.  980 
and  987. 

Again,  in  his  treatise  on  the  Trinity,  cap.  xiii.  he  says,  "  Maxime 
vero  illo  loco  satis  claret,  quod  Spiritus  Sanctus  non  sit  creatura,  ubi 
jubemur  non  servire  creaturoe,  sed  creatori :  non  eo  modo  quo  jubemur 
per  caritatem  servire  invicem,  quod  est  Graece  dovXeveiv,  sed  eo  modo 
quo  tantum  Deo  servitur,  quod  est  Graece  Xarpevetv."  (Opera,  Vol.  viii. 
p.  1164.)  Other  passages  of  a  similar  kind  maybe  quoted;  but  these 
are  sufficient  to  shew  the  opinion  of  Augustine. 

On  the  other  hand  may  be  produced  the  following  passages  of  scrip- 
ture, to  shew  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  exists  this  nice  distinction 
betwixt  the  two  words.  See  Matt.  vi.  24.  Luke  xvi.  13.  Romans  vii.  25 ; 
xvi.  18.  Col.  iii.  24.  Gal.  iv.  8.  1  Thess.  i.  9.  in  which  places  dovXevco 
is  used  for  serving  God.  The  two  words  are  frequently  used  promis- 
cuously in  scripture  :  Xarpevai  is  applied  to  the  service  of  men,  as  well 
as  God,  Compare  Deut,  xxviii.  48.  Lev.  xxiii.  7,  where  Xarpevco  is  used 
in  a  servile  sense.  In  the  whole  of  the  4th  chapter  of  Galatians  8ovXevco 
is  applied  to  the  worship  of  God.  Nonnus  interprets  Xarpeia  by  8ov- 
Xoa-vvT]  and  8ovXos  :  for,  says  Casaubon,  that  unsound  distinction  which 
confines  Xarpeia  to  God,  and  BovXoa-iivrj  to  angels,  had  not  arisen. 





do  not  signify  the  service  and  honour  that  is  proper  to 
God:  as  for  SovXevw,  [it]  is  in  more  than  an  hundred  places 
used  for  the  service  and  honour  proper  to  God.  St  Augus- 
tine, you  confess  afterward,  knew  well  but  one  tongue ;  and 
therefore  he  is  no  meet  judge  of  distinction  of  Greek  words. 
Bede  foUoweth  Augustine's  error.  The  idolaters  of  the 
second  Nicene  council  were  glad  of  a  cloak  for  the  rain,  con- 
trary to  the  property  of  their  tongue ;  as  is  proved  by 
Eustathius,  Aristophanes,  Xenophon,  Suidas,  and  by  later 
writers,  no  protestants,  Laurentius  Valla,  and  Ludovicus 
Vivos.  Mysterium  we  translate  a  "secret,"  or  a  "mystery,"  in- 
differently ;  the  word  signifying  no  more  an  holy  secret,  than 
a  profane  and  abominable  secret,  as  the  "  mystery  of  iniquity," 
"  the  mystery  of  Babylon."  For  the  words  ecclesia,  and 
')^€ipoTovia,  we  have  said  sufficiently,  and  very  lately.  To 
use  Tully's  words,  when  they  answer  the  Greek  as  properly 
as  any  barbarous  words,  or  less  commendable  words,  I  know 
not  why  it  should  be  counted  blame-worthy  in  Beza,  or  in 
any  man,  except  it  be  of  such  a  sycophant  as  liketh  nothing 
but  that  which  savoureth  of  his  own  spittle. 


Martin.  But  to  return  to  our  English  translators  :  do  not  they  the 
like  to  profane  Castaleo,  and  do  they  not  the  very  same  that  Beza  their 
master  so  largely  reprehendeth,  when  they  translate  presbyterum  "an 
elder  ?"  Is  it  not  all  one  fault  to  translate  so,  and  to  translate,  as  Castaleo 
doth,  baptismum  washing  ?  Hath  not  presbyter  heen  a  peculiar  and  usual 
word  for  a  priest,  as  long  as  haptismus  for  the  sacrament  of  regeneration, 
which  Castaleo  altering  into  a  common  and  profane  word,  is  worthily 
reprehended  ?  We  will  prove  it  hath,  not  for  their  sake,  who  know  it 
well  enough,  but  for  the  reader's  sake,  whom  they  abuse,  as  if  they 
knew  it  not. 



Fulke.  If  it  be  as  great  a  fault  in  us  to  translate  pres- 
byteriim,  "an  elder,""  as  for  Castaleo  to  translate  baptismum 
"  washing  ;'"*  your  vulgar  translator  must  be  in  the  same  fault 
with  us,  which  so  often  traxislaiQilx  presbyteros,  seniores,  or 
major  es  natu,  which  signify  "elders,"  and  not  "priests:"  it  is 
a  vain  thing  therefore  that  you  promise  to  prove,  that  "pres- 
byter hath  been  a  peculiar  and  usual  word  for  a  'priest,''  as 
long  as  baptismus  for  the  sacrament  of  regeneration."  For 
peculiar  you  can  never  prove  it,  seeing  it  is  used  in  the 
scripture  so  often  for  such  elders  and  ancients  as  you  your- 


self  would  not  call  priests.  So  that,  if  you  clid  translate 
the  whole  bible  out  of  your  own  vulgar  Latin,  you  must 
translate  presbyter  thrice  an  "  elder"  or  "  ancient,"  for  once 
a  "  priest." 

Martin,    In  the  first  and  second  canon  of  the  apostles  we  read  thus  :  Martin, 
Episcopus  a  duobus  aut  tribus  episcopis  ordinetur.     Presbyter  ab  uno 
episcopo  ordinetur,  et  diaconus,  et  alii  clerici^ :  that  is,  "  Let  a  bishop  be  ^rlia^h^slg^" 
consecrated  or  ordained  by  two  or  three  bishops."     "  Let  a  priest  be  ^lom  fhe"po- 
made  by  one  bishop."     See  in  the  fourth  council  of  Carthage  the  diverse  sties'  time, 

.  not  an  elder. 

manner  of  consecrating  bishops,  priests,  deacons,  &c.  where  St  Angus-  Can.  2, 3, 4. 
tine  was  present  and  subscribed.    Again,  Si  quis  presbyter  contemnens  ^.^^  ^     j 
cpiscopiun  suiim,  &:c. :  "  If  any  priest  contemning  his  bishop,"  make  a  32- 
several  congregation,  and  erect  another  altar,  that  is,  make  a  schism  or 
heresy,  let  him  be  deposed.     So  did  Arius,  being  a  priest,  agamst  his 
bishop  Alexander.    Again,  "  priests  and  deacons,  let  them  attempt  to  do  can.  40.* 
notliing  without  the  bishop."   The  first  council  of  Nice  saith  :  "  The  holy  can.  3.3 
synod  by  all  means  forbiddeth,  that  neither  bishop,  nor  priest,  nor  deacon, 
&c.,  have  with  them  any  foreign  woman,  but  the  mother,  or  sister,  &c., 
in  whom  there  is  no  suspicion."    Again,  "  It  is  told  the  holy  councU,  can.  14.< 
that  in  certain  places  and  cities  deacons  give  the  sacraments  to  priests. 
This  neither  rule  nor  custom  hath  delivered,  that  they  which  have  not 
authority  to  offer  the  sacrifice,  should  give  to  them  that  offer  the  body 
of  Christ."    The  third  councU  of  Carthage,  wherein  St  Augustine  was, 
and  to  the  which  he  subscribed,  decreeth,  "That  in  the  sacraments  of  can.  24  n 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  there  be  no  more  offered  than  our  Lord 
himself  delivered,  that  is,  bread  and  wine  mingled  with  water."    WTiich 
the  sixth  general  councU  of  Constantinople  repeating  and  confirming, 
addeth :  "  If  therefore  any  bishop  or  priest  do  not  according  to  the  order  el  -ris:  oZv 
given  by  the  apostles,  mingling  water  with  wine,  but  offer  an  unmingled  ^-  -^ne^^l' 
sacrifice,  let  him  be  deposed,"  &c.    But  of  these  speeches  all  councils  be  xe^os". 
full :  where  we  would  gladly  know  of  these  new  translators,  how  presby- 
ter must  be  translated,  either  an  "  elder,"  or  a  "  priest." 

Fulke.      I  think  you  have  clean  forgotten  your  promise  Fulke, 
so  lately  made.     That  tliis  word  presbyter  hath  always  been    '* 
peculiar  for  a  "priest,"  you  bring  many  testimonies,  some  coun- 
terfeit, some  authentical,  in  which  the  name   of  Trjoecr/Byrejoo? 
and  presbyter  is  fomid ;  but  that  in  all  them  it  is  pecuUar 

Q   Vel  tribus  Episcopis.    Et  reliqui  cleri.     Canon  xxx.     Concilia  edit. 
Labbe,  Vol.  i.  p.  26,  not.  xxxii.] 

[2  Can.  xxxviii.  Edit.  Labbe.]  P  Can.  iii.  Vol.  11.  p.  28.] 

C*  Can.  xviii.]  P  Vol.  11.  p.  1170.] 

\^  Can.  xxxii.  Vol.  vi.  p.  1157.] 




for  a  "  priest,"  you  shew  not  at  all.  Some  colour  it  hath  of 
that  you  say,  in  the  14th  canon  of  the  Nicene  coimcil,  and 
Carth.  iii.  c.  24,  repeated  Const,  vi.,  where  mention  is  made 
of  sacrifice  and  oiFering ;  for  so  they  did  improperly  call 
the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper,  in  respect  of  the  sacri- 
fice of  thanksgiving  that  was  offered  therein.  After  which 
phrase  also,  they  called  the  ministers  lepeh  and  sacerdotes, 
"sacrificers."  So  they  called  that  which  indeed  was  a  table 
of  wood,  an  altar,  and  the  inferior  ministers  Levites ;  by 
which  it  appeareth  they  did  rather  allude  to  the  names  used 
in  the  Old  Testament,  than  acknowledged  a  sacrificing  priest- 
hood, that  might  as  properly  be  so  called,  as  the  priesthood 
after  the  order  of  Aaron  was.  Sometime  they  used  the 
name  of  "  sacrifice"  and  sacerdos  generally,  for  religious  ser- 
vice, and  the  minister  of  religion,  as  the  gentiles  did.  And 
hereof  it  is,  that  we  read  often  of  the  sacrifices  of  bread  and 
wine  ;  and  in  the  canon  of  Carthage  by  you  cited.  Nee 
amplius  in  sacrificiis  offeratur  quam  de  uvis  et  frumentis^ : 
"And  let  no  more  be  offered  in  the  sacrifices,  than  that  which 
is  made  of  grapes  and  corn."  This  was  bread  and  wine,  not 
the  natural  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Wherefore  these 
improper  speeches  prove  not  a  sacrificing  priesthood,  whereby 
the  natural  body  and  blood  of  Christ  should  be  offered  in  the 
mass,  which  is  the  mark  you  shoot  at. 


Ep.  2.  ad 
TO  irpeer- 

OL    TTjOeo-jSu- 

in  c.  7-  Mi- 

Ep.  85.  ad 
Epitaph.  Ne- 
potiani,  c.  9. 

Martin.  Do  not  all  the  fathers  speak  after  the  same  manner,  making 
always  this  distinction  of  "bishop"  and  "priest,''  as  of  the  first  and 
second  degree?  St  Ignatius,  the  apostle's  scholar,  doth  he  not  place 
preshyterium,  as  he  calleth  it,  and  presbyteros,  "  priests,"  or  the  "  college 
of  priests,"  next  after  "  bishops,"  and  "  deacons"  in  the  third  place,  re- 
peating it  no  less  than  thrice  in  one  epistle,  and  commending  the  dignity 
of  all  three  unto  the  people  ?  Doth  not  St  Jerome  the  very  same,  saying, 
"  Let  us  honour  a  bishop,  do  reverence  to  a  priest,  rise  up  to  a  deacon^  ?" 
And  when  he  saith,  that  as  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  the  Levites  were  in 
the  temple,  so  are  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  in  the  church,  for  place 

p  Vol.  II.  1170.1 

P  Nolite  credere  in  ducibus,  non  in  episcopo,  non  in  presbytero, 
non  in  diacono,  non  in  qualibet  hominum  dignitate.  *  *  »  •  *  Honoremus 
episcopum,  presbytero  deferamus,  assurgamus  diacono;  et  tamen  non 
speremus  in  eis :  quia  hominis  vana,  et  certa  spes  est  in  Domino.  Com- 
ment. Hieronymi  in  Michaese,  c.  vii.  Opera,  Vol.  iii.  p.  1549.] 

VI.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  •  263 

and  degree' ;  and  in  another  place,  speaking  of  the  outrages  done  by 
the  Vandals  and  such  hke,  "Bishops  were  taken,  priests  slain,  and 
diverse  of  other  ecclesiastical  orders;  churches  overthrown,  the  altars 
of  Christ  made  stables  for  horses,  the  reUcs  of  martyrs  digged  up,"  &c.* 
when  he  saith  of  Nepotian,  fit  clericus,  et  per  solitos  gradus  presbyter 
ordinatur ;  "  he  becometh  a  man  of  the  clergy,  and  by  the  accustomed 
degrees  is  made,"  what  ?  a  "priest,"  or  an  "  elder"  1  when  he  saith,  Mihi 
ante  presbyterum  sedere  non  licet,  &c.,  doth  he  mean  he  could  not  sit  above 
an  elder,  or  above  a  priest,  himself  as  then  being  not  priest  ?  When  he 
and  Vincentius,  as  St  Epiphanius  wTiteth,  of  reverence  to  the  degree,  Ep.  60.  apud 

•  1-       ij       u-     9  Hiero.  c.  1. 

were  hardly  induced  to  be  made  presbyteri,  did  they  refuse  the  eldership  { 

What  was  the  matter,  that  John  the  bishop  of  Jerusalem  seemed  to  be 

so  much  offended  with  Epiphanius  and  St  Jerome  ?  was  it  not  because 

Epiphanius  made  Paulianus,  St  Jerome's  brother,  priest  withki  the  said  Ep.  i.  ad 

John's  diocese  ? 

Fulke.  Before  the  blasphemous  heresy  of  the  popish  Fulke, 
sacrifice  of  the  mass  was  estabhshed  in  the  world,  the  fathers  ■^^• 
did  with  more  hberty  use  the  terms  of  "sacrifice"  and  "  sacri- 
ficing priests;"  which  improper  speeches,  since  they  have 
given  occasion  in  the  time  of  ignorance  to  maintain  that 
blasphemous  heresy,  there  is  good  reason  that  we  should 
beware  how  we  use  any  such  terms,  especially  in  translation 
of  the  scriptures.  All  the  rest  of  the  authorities  you  cite  in 
this  section,  and  five  hundred  more  such  as  they  are,  speak 
of  presbyter  or  TrpeajSurepo^,  which  words  we  embrace  :  but 
of  the  English  word  "priest,"  as  it  is  commonly  taken  for  a 
sacrificer,  or  against  this  word  "  elder,"  they  speak  nothing ; 
for  in  all  those  places  we  may  truly  translate  for  presbyter 
an  "  elder." 

Martin.    When  all  antiquity  saith,  Hieronymus  Presbyter,  Cecilius  Martin, 
Presbyter,  Ruffinus  Presbyter,  Philippus,  Juvencus,  Hesychius,  Beda,  ^* 
presbyteri ;  and  when  St  Jerome  so  often  in  his  Catalogue  saith,  such  a 
man,  presbyter;  is  it  not  for  distinction  of  a  certain  order,  to  signify  that 
they  were  priests,  and  not  bishops  ?  namely,  when  he  saith  of  St  Chry- 

[^  Et  ut  sciamus  traditiones  apostolicas  sumtas  de  veteri  testamento, 
quod  Aaron  et  filii  ejus  atque  Levitee  in  templo  fuerunt,  hoc  sibi  epis- 
copi  et  presbyteri  et  diaconi  vendicant  in  ecclesia.  Hieronymi  Epist. 
c.  i.  ad  Evangelum.    Opera,  Vol.  iv.  p.  803.] 

[*  Capti  episcopi,  interfecti  presbyteri,  et  diversorum  ofi&cia  cleri- 
corum.  Subversae  ecclesiae,  ad  altaria  Christi  stabulati  equi,  martyrum 
effossae  reliquiae.  Hieronymi,  Epitaph.  Nepotiani.  Opera,  Vol.  iv. 
p.  274.] 






sostom,  Joannes  presbyter  Antiochenus,  doth  he  not  mean  he  was  as  then 
but  a  priest  of  Antioch  1  Would  he  have  said  so,  if  he  had  written  of 
him  after  he  was  bishop  of  Constantinople  ? 

Fulke.  All  this  wliile  here  is  nothing  for  the  Enghsh 
word  "priest,"  in  that  respect  we  avoid  it  in  translation;  nor 
against  the  word  "elder,"  which  we  use,  by  which  we  mean 
none  other  thing  than  the  scripture  doth  give  us  to  under- 
stand by  the  word  Trpeo-jSyrejOos.  As  for  the  distinction  of 
episcopus  and  presbyter,  which  came  in  afterward,  you  your- 
self confessed,  as  we  heard  of  late,  that  it  is  not  observed  in 
the  scriptures ;  but  the  same  men  are  called  episcopi,  wliich 
before  were  called  preshyteri.  And  according  to  that  dis- 
tinction, you  can  allow  but  one  bishop  of  one  city  at  once  : 
yet  the  scripture  in  divers  places  speaketh  of  many  bishops 
of  one  city,  as  Acts  xx,,  the  bishops  of  Ephesus,  called  before 
preshyteri,  "  elders ;"  also  he  saluteth  the  bishops  and  deacons 
of  Philippi,  Phil,  i,,  where  your  note  saith,  that  in  the 
apostle's  time  there  were  not  observed  always  distinct  names 
of  either  function  of  bishop  and  priest.  Would  you  have 
us  to  translate  the  scripture  with  distinction  of  names  wliich 
the  Holy  Ghost  maketh  not,  nor  your  vulgar  Latin  observeth, 
nor  you  yourself  for  shame  can  observe  ?  And  if  we  should 
have  translated  for  "elders'"  "priests,"  that  distinction  taken 
up  after  the  apostle's  times,  or  the  writing  of  the  scripture, 
had  been  never  the  more  confirmed. 


Martin.    But  of  all  other  places,  we  would  desire  these  gay  transla- 
tors to  translate  this  one  place  of  St  Augustine,  speaking  of  himself  a 

Quanquam  enim  secundum  honorum 

Inter  Episto-  bishop,  and  St  Jerome  a  priest 

las  Hiero.  Ep.  .  . 

97.  in  fine,  vocaoula,  qucs jam  ecclesue  usus  obtinuit,  episcopatus  presbyterio  major  sit; 
tamen  in  multis  rebus  Augustinus  Hieronymo  minor  est.  Is  not  this 
the  English  thereof?  "For  although  according  to  the  titles  or  names  of 
honour,  which  now  by  use  of  the  church  have  prevailed,  the  degree  of 
bishop  be  greater  than  priesthood,  yet  in  many  things  Augustine  is 
less  than  Jerome."  Or  doth  it  like  them  to  translate  it  thus,  "The 
degree  of  bishop  is  greater  than  eldership,"  &c.  ?  Again,  against  Julian 
the  heretic,  when  he  hath  brought  many  testimonies  of  the  holy  doctors, 
that  were  all  bishops,  as  of  St  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  BasU,  Nazianzene, 
Chrysostom ;  at  length  he  cometh  to  St  Jerome,  who  was  no  bishop,  and 
saith.  Nee  sanctum  Hieronymum,  quia  presbyter  fuit,  contemnendum. 
arbitreris ;  that  is,  "  Neither  must  thou  thuik  that  St  Jerome,  because 
he  was  but  a  priest,  therefore  is  to  be  contemned  ;  whose  divine  eloquence 
hath  shined  to  us  from  the  east  even  to  the  west,  like  a  lamp ;"  and  so 

Lib.  1.  c.  2. 
in  fine. 


forth  to  his  gi-eat  commendation.  Here  is  a  plain  distinction  of  an  infe- 
rior degree  to  a  bishop,  for  the  which  the  heretic  Julian  did  easily  con- 
temn him.  Is  not  St  Cyprian  full  of  the  like  places  ?  Is  not  all  antiquity 
so  full,  that  whiles  I  prove  this,  methinketh  I  prove  nothing  else  but 
that  snow  is  white  ? 

Fulke.  Of  all  other  importune  and  unreasonable  judges  Fulke, 
you  are  one  of  the  worst,  that  would  enforce  us  to  translate 
the  scriptures,  which  you  confess  observeth  not  the  distinction 
of  bishops  and  priests,  according  to  the  fathers,  which  do 
almost  always  observe  it.  If  we  should  translate  those  sen- 
tences of  St  Augustine,  we  might  use  the  word  "  priest"  for 
presbyter,  and  "priesthood"  for  preshyterium;  and  if  we  use 
the  words  "  elders"  and  "  eldership,"  what  offence  I  pray  you 
were  it,  when  by  these  names  we  understand  nothing,  but 
the  same  function  and  minister  wliich  Augustine  doth  ?  That 
episcopus,  a  "  bishop,"  was  of  very  old  time  used  to  signify 
a  degree  ecclesiastical  liigher  than  presbyter,  an  "  elder"  or 
"priest,"  we  did  never  deny;  we  know  it  right  well.  We  know 
what  St  Jerome  writeth  upon  the  epistle  to  Titus,  chap.  i. 
Idem  est  ergo  presbyter,  qui  episcopus^.  "The  same  man 
is  presbyter,  or  an  '  elder,'  or  '  priest,'  wliich  is  episcopus,  a 
'bishop.'  And  before  that,  by  the  instinct  of  the  devil,  factions 
were  made  in  rehgion,  and  it  was  said  among  the  people, 
'I  am  of  Paul,  I  of  Apollo,  and  I  of  Cephas,'  the  churches 
were  governed  by  common  counsel  presbyterorum,  '  of  the 
elders.'  But  afterward,  when  every  one  thought  those  whom 
he  had  baptized  to  be  his  own,  and  not  Christ's,  it  was  de- 
creed in  the  whole  world,  that  one  de  presbyteris,  '  of  the 
elders,'  being  elected,  should  be  set  over  the  rest,  to  whom 
all  the  care  of  the  church  should  pertain,  and  the  seeds  of 
scliisms  should  be  taken  away."  Tliis,  and  much  more  to  this 
effect,  writeth  St  Hieronyme  of  this  distinction,  in  that  place, 
and  in  divers  other  places ;  which  nothing  proveth  that  we 

[}  Idem  est  ergo  presbyter  qui  episcopus :  et  antequam  diaboli  in- 
stinctu  studia  in  religione  fierent,  et  diceretur  in  populis,  Ego  sum 
Pauli,  ego  Apollo,  ego  autem  Cephse,  communi  presbyterorum  consilio 
ecclesiae  gubemabantur.  Postquam  vero  unusquisque  eos  quos  baptiza- 
verat  suos  putabat  esse,  non  Christi,  in  toto  orbe  decretum  est,  ut  unus 
de  presbyteris  electus  superponeretur  ceteris,  ad  quern  omnis  ecclesiae 
cura  pertineret,  et  schismatum  semina  toUerentur.  Comment.  Hiero- 
nymi  in  Titum,  c.  i.    Opera,  Vol.  iv.  p.  413.] 

266  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CEt. 

are  bound  to  translate  presbyter  in  the  scripture  a  "  priest,"" 
and  least  of  all,  that  we  are  bound  in  terms  to  keep  that 
distinction,  which  the  scripture  maketh  not,  and  the  papists 
themselves  cannot  observe  in  their  most  partial  translation. 

Martin,  Martin,    In  aE  which  places  if  they  will  translate  "elder,"  and  yet 

make  the  same  a  common  name  to  all  ecclesiastical  degrees,  as  Beza 

1  Pet.  V.  defineth  it,  let  the  indifferent  reader  consider  the  absurd  confusion,  or 
rather  the  impossibility  thereof:  if  not,  but  they  will  grant  in  all  these 
places  it  signifieth  "  priest,"  and  so  is  meant ;  then  we  must  beat  them 

Beza's  words  with.  Beza's  rod  of  repi'ehension  against  Castaleon,   that   "  we  cannot 

in  the  place  °  , 

above  aiieg-  dissemble  the  boldness  of  these  men,  which  would  God  it  rested  within 
the  custom  of  words  only,  and  were  not  important  matter  concerning 
their  heresy !  These  men  therefore,  touching  the  word  '  priest,'  though 
used  of  sacred  writers  in  the  mystery  of  the  New  Testament,  and  for  so 
many  years  after,  by  the  secret  consent  of  all  churches,  consecrated  to 
this  one  sacrament,  so  that  it  is  now  grown  to  be  the  proper  vulgar 

v'^hk  speech  almost  of  all  nations ;  yet  they  dare  presume  rashly  to  change 

Priest.  it,  and  in  place  thereof  to  use  the  word  '  elder.'    DeUcate  men,  forsooth !" 

(yea,  worse  a  great  deal,  because  these  do  it  for  heresy,  and  not  for  deli- 
cacy,) "which  neither  are  moved  with  the  perpetual  authority  of  so 
many  ages,  nor  by  the  daily  custom  of  the  vulgar  speech  can  be  brought 
to  think  that  lawful  for  divines,  which  all  men  grant  to  other  masters 
and  professors  of  arts ;  that  is,  to  retain  and  hold  that  as  their  own, 
wliich  by  long  use,  and  in  good  faith,  they  have  truly  possessed.  Nei- 
ther may  they  pretend  the  authority  of  any  ancient  writer,"  (as  that  the 

Presbyter,      old  Latin  translator  saith  senior  and  seniores ;)  "for  that  which  was  to 

for  a  priest.  ,  i  i  i  <• 

Baptismus,     them  as  it  were  new,  to  us  is  old ;  and  even  then,  that  the  selfsame  words 
ment  of  bapT  wliich  we  now  use  were  more  familiar  to  the  church,  it  is  evident,  be- 
cause it  is  very  seldom  that  they  speak  otherwise." 

FcLKE,  Fulke.      I   see  no  impossibility,    but  that   in  all  places 

where  we  read  j^feshyter,  we  may  lawfully  translate  "  elder," 
as  well  as  "  priest,"  and  make  it  still,  in  scripture,  a  common 
name  to  all  ecclesiastical  degrees,  (at  least,  to  as  many  as 
the  scripture  maketh  it  common,)  without  any  absurdity  or 
confusion.  And  albeit  in  the  fathers  we  should  translate 
it  "  priest,"  because  they  understood  by  the  name  presbyter 
a  distinct  degree  from  episcopus ;  yet  the  saying  of  Beza 
against  Castaleo  could  not  by  any  wise  man  be  applied  to 
us.  For  Castaleo  changed  the  name  of  the  sacrament  bap- 
tismus, by  wliich  both  the  scriptures  and  the  fathers  uni- 
formly did  use  to  signify  one  and  the  same  sacrament : 
whereas  the  name  of  presbyter  in  the  scripture  signifieth 
one  thing,  and  in  the  fathers  another.     For  in  the  scripture 


it  is  taken  indifferently  for  episcopus,  and  episcopus  for 
presbyter :  but  in  the  fathers  these  are  two  distinct  degrees. 
Therefore  he  is  worthy  to  be  beaten  in  a  grammar-school, 
that  cannot  see  manifest  difference  between  the  use  of  the 
word  haptismus,  which,  being  spoken  of  the  sacrament,  in 
the  scriptures  and  fathers  is  always  one,  and  of  presbyter, 
which  in  the  scriptures  is  every  ecclesiastical  governor,  in  the 
fathers  one  degree  only,  that  is  subject  to  the  bishop. 

Martin.  Thus  we  have  repeated  Beza'e  words  again,  only  changing  Martin, 
the  word  "  baptism"  into  "  priest,"  because  the  case  is  all  one :  and  so 
unwittingly  Beza,  the  successor  of  Calvin  in  Geneva,  hath  given  plain 
sentence  against  our  English  translators  in  all  such  cases,  as  they  go  from 
the  common  received  and  usual  sense  to  another  profane  sense,  and  out  of 
use  :  as,  namely,  in  this  point  of  "  priest"  and  "  priesthood."  Where  we 
must  needs  add  a  word  or  two,  though  we  be  too  long,  because  their 
folly  and  malice  is  too  great  herein.   For  whereas  the  very  name  "  priest"  s^M-  Whit- 

.  .;  X-  g,fj  g  defence 

never  came  into  our  English  tongue,  but  of  the  Latin  presbyter,  (for  against  the 

J.  ,  ,  1,    1         1       ,  \      1  Puritans'  Re- 

thereupon  sacerdos  also  was  so  called  only  by  a  consequence,)  they  piy,  p.  721, 
translate  sacerdos"  priest,"  and  presbyter,  not  priest,  but  "elder,"  as  wisely  firmeth  that 
and  as  reasonably,  as  if  a  man  should  translate  Prcetor  Londini,  "  Mayor  pri^^  com- 
of  London,"  and  Major  Londini,  not  "  Mayor  of  London,"  but  "  Greater  ^ord^/wW- 
of  London ;"  or  Academia  Oxoniensis,  "  the  University  of  Oxford,"  and  ofthTword' 
Universitas  Oxoniensis,  not  "the  University,"  but  "the  Generality  of  sacerdos. 
Oxford ;"  and  such  like. 

Fulke.  Beza's  words  agree  to  us,  as  well  as  German's  Fulke, 
lips,  that  were  nine  mile  asunder.  For  if  this  English  word 
"  priest,"  by  custom  of  speech,  did  signify  no  more  than  the 
Greek  word  TrpeafivTepo^,  we  would  no  less  use  it  in  our  trans- 
lations, than  **  bishops'"  and  "  deacons  :"  which  offices  though 
they  be  shamefully  abused  by  the  papists,  yet  the  abuse 
of  the  words  maketh  no  confusion  between  the  ministers  of 
the  law  and  of  the  gospel,  as  this  word  "  priest"  doth,  by 
which  the  Jewish  sacrificers  are  rather  understood,  than 
preachers  of  the  gospel  and  ministers  of  the  sacraments. 
But  whereas  the  etymology  of  tliis  Enghsh  word  "priest" 
cometh  from  presbyter,  you  charge  us  with  great  folly  and 
mahce,  that  for  sacerdos  we  translate  "  priest,"  and  for  pres- 
byter "  elder."  To  this  I  answer.  We  are  not  lords  of  the 
common  speech  of  men ;  for  if  we  were,  we  would  teach  them 
to  use  their  terms  more  properly :  but  seeing  we  cannot 
change  the  use  of  speech,  we  follow  Aristotle's  counsel,  which 


A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  ["cH. 

is  to  speak  and  use  words  as  the  common  people  useth, 
but  to  imderstand  and  conceive  of  things  according  to  the 
nature  and  true  property  of  them.  Although,  for  my  part, 
I  like  well  of  the  French  translation,  which  for  lepel^,  or 
sacerdotes,  always  translateth  sacrificateurs,  "  sacrificers ;"  and 
for  preshyteri,  where  they  signify  the  ministers  of  the  word 
and  sacraments,  prestres,  "  priests."  But  this  diversity  being 
only  of  words,  and  not  of  matter  or  meaning,  reasonable  men 
will  take  an  answer ;  fools  and  quarrellers  will  never  acknow- 
ledge any  satisfaction. 

Martin,  Martin.    Again,  what  exceeding  folly  is  it,  to  think  that  by  false 

23-  and  profane  translation  of  presbyter   into  "elder,"   they  might  take 

away  the  external  priesthood  of  the  new  testament,  whereas  their  own 

word  sacerdos,  which,  they  do  and  must  needs  translate  "priest,"  is  as 

common  and  as  usual  in  all  antiquity  as  presbyter ;  and  so  much  the 

more,  for  that  it  is  used  indifferently  to  signify  both  bishops  and  priests, 

which  presbyter  lightly  doth  not  but  in  the  New   Testament.      As 

when  Constantine  the  Great  said  to  the  bishops  assembled  in  the  council 

Kuffin.  lib.  1.  <^f  Nice  :  Deus  vos  constituit  sacerdotes,  &c.     "  God  hath  ordained  you 

''■  ^-  priests,  and  hath  given  you  power  to  judge  of  us  also."    And  St  Ambrose : 

Epist.  32.  ad   "  Wlien  didst  thou  ever  hear,  most  clement  prince,  that  laymen  have 

num'im"p!'     J  lodged  bishops  ?     Shall  we  bend  by  flattery  so  far,  that  forgetting  the 

Juris  sacerdo-  I'ight  of  our  priesthood,  we  should  yield  up  to  others  that  which  God 

'^''^"  hath  commended  to  us?"    And  therefore   doth  St  Chrysostom   entitle 

his  six  books,  De  Sacerdotio,  Of  Priesthood,  concerning  the  dignity  and 

In  Apoiog.     calling  not  only  of  mere  priests,  but  also  of  bishops :  and  St  Gregory 

orat*"*^"^'    Nazianzene,  handling  the  same  argument,  saith,  "that  they  execute 

X,oio-T(o       priesthood  together  with  Christ."    And  St  Ignatius  saith  :  "  Do  nothing 

eiv  Epist  1    ^'ithout  the  bishops ;  for  they  are  priests,  but  thou  the  deacon  of  the 

adHieronem.  priests."  And  in  the  Greek  liturgies  or  masses,  so  often  :  o  te/jeis,  "Then 

Sacerdotes.  .  " 

iepev^.  the  priest  saith  this  and  that,"  signifying  also  the  bishop  when  he  saith 

diuKovo^  mass;  and  *  St  Denys  saith  sometime,  ^?'cA?saceJ*rfo<eTO  cum  sacerdotibus, 

lepdpxv"  "The  high  priest  or  bishop  with  the  priests ;"  whereof  come  the  words 

a-vv  jois  Uparevfiv,  lepovpyelv,   lepdrevpa,  UpaTfia,   tepovpyia,  in  the  ancient  Greek 

•  Ec.  Hiera.  fathers,  for  the  sacred  function  of  priesthood,  and  executing  of  the  same. 

c.  3. 

Martin,  Martin.     If    then    the  heretics  could  possibly  have   extinguished 

^'^'  priesthood  m  the  word  presbyter,  yet  you  see  it  would  have  remained 

still  in  the  words  sacerdos  and  sacerdotium,  which  themselves  translate 
"  priest"  and  "  priesthood ;"  and  therefore  we  must  desire  them  to  trans-  ' 
late  us  a  place  or  two  after  their  owti  mamier.     First,  St  Augustine 
Lib.  8.  c.  27.    speaking  thus  :   Quis  unquam  audivit  sacerdotem  ad  altare  stantem  etiam 
super  reliquias  martyrum  dicere,  Offero  tibi,Petre,  et  Paule,  vel  Cypriane?^ 

[}  The  passage  of  Augustine  here  referred  to  is  incorrectly  quoted. 
In  the  Paris  reprint  of  the  Benedictme  edition  it  stands  thus :  "  Quis 

De  Civ.  Dei. 


"  Who  ever  heard  that  a  priest  standing  at  the  altar,  even  over  the  relics 

of  the  martyrs,  said,  I  offer  to  thee,  Peter,  and  Paul,  or  Cyprian"  ?     So, 

we  trow,  they  must  translate  it.    Again,  Nos  uni  Deo  et  martyr  urn  et  Lib.22.  civ. 

nostra  sacrificium   immolamus,   ad  quod  sacrifidum  sicut   homines  Dei 

suo  loco  et  ordine  nominantur,  non  tamen  a  sacerdote  invocantur.    Deo 

quippe,  non  ipsis  sacrifieat,  quamvis  in  memoria  sacrificet  eorum,  quia  Dei 

sacerdos  est,  non   illoriim.     Ipsutn  vero  sacrificium  corpus  est  Christi^. 

We  think  they  wUl  and  must  translate  it  thus  :  "  We  offer  sacrifice  to 

the  only  God  both  of  martyrs  and  ours,  at  the  which  sacrifice,  as  men 

of  God  they  (martyrs)  are  named  in  their  place  and  order  ;  yet  are  they 

not  invocated  of  the  priest  that  sacrificeth.     For  he  sacrificeth  to  God,  So  as  he  said 

and  not  to  them,  though  he  sacrifice  in  the  memory  of  them,  because  to  thee,  Peter^ 

he  is  God's  priest,  and  not  theirs.    And  the  sacrifice  itself  is  the  body  of  '^'^' 


Fulke.  Nay,  "  what  exceeding  folly  is  it  to  think"  that  Fulke, 
an  external  sacrificing  office  can  be  established  in  the  New  ' 
Testament  (which  never  calleth  the  ministers  thereof  sacer- 
dotes,  or  l€pe1<i),  because  men  of  later  time  have  improperly 
transferred  those  terms  mito  the  "  elders"  or  "  priests"  of 
the  New  Testament !  Certainly  among  so  many  names  as 
the  scriptm:'e  giveth  them,  if  sacrificing  for  the  quick  and  the 
dead  had  been  the  principal  part  of  their  function,  as  by  you 
papists  hath  been  accomited,  is  it  credible,  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  would  never  have  called  them  \epe1s,  as  well,  yea, 
and  rather  than  the  "  sacrificers"  of  the  old  testament  ? 
Seeing  therefore  the  Holy  Ghost  had  made  such  a  broad 
difference  between  their  names  and  offices,  those  ancient 
fathers  that  confounded  those  names,  wliich  the  Spirit  of  God 
would  have  to  be  distinct,  cannot  be  excused ;  although  they 

autem  audivit  aliquaudo  fidelium  stantem  sacerdotem  ad  altare  etiam 
super  sanctum  corpus  martyris  ad  Dei  honorem  cultumque  constructum, 
dicere  in  precibus,  Offero  tibi  sacrificium,  Petre,  vel  Paule,  vel  Cypriane  1 
Augustmi  Opera,  Vol.  vii.  p.  349.  Edit.  Paris.  1838.] 

[^  This  quotation  also,  as  here  given,  differs  from  the  Benedictine 
edition,  where  it  stands  thus :  "  Sed  uni  Deo  et  martyrum  et  nostro ; 
ad  quod  sacrificium,  sicut  homines  Dei,  qui  mundum  in  ejus  confes- 
sione  vicerunt,  suo  loco  et  ordine  nominantur,  non  tamen  a  sacerdote, 
qui  sacrifieat,  invocantur.  Deo  quippe,  non  ipsis  sacrifieat,  quam- 
vis in  memoria  sacrificet  eorum;  quia  Dei  sacerdos  est,  non  illorum. 
Ipsum  vero  sacrificium  corpus  est  Christi,  quod  non  offertur  ipsis,  quia 
hoc  sunt  et  ipsi."  p.  1073.  At  'nostro'  there  is  a  various  reading  with 
this  remark :  "  Hie  editi  addunt,  sacrificium  immolamus :  quod  abest  a 
manuscriptis."    V.  Lectiones  Variant es,  p.  1288,  upon  the  passage.] 

270  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

never  dreamed  of  the  mischief  that  followed,  that  the  altar  of 
the  cross  being  overthrown,  and  the  only  and  sufficient  sacri- 
fice, which  Christ  our  "high  sacrificer"  offered  once  for  all, 
being  judged  imperfect,  a  new  "  altar,"  a  new  "  sacrifice,"  and 
a  new  "  sacrificing  priesthood"  should  be  set  up  in  the  stead 
of  it.  Wherefore  the  improper  speeches  of  the  ancient  writers 
are  no  warrant  for  us,  either  to  translate  the  scripture  ac- 
cording to .  their  improper  speaking,  or  to  set  up  a  new 
sacrifice  and  function  of  sacrificing  contrary  to  their  mean- 
ing. They  named  "  sacrifice"  and  "  offering,"  but  they  meant 
not  propitiatory  sacrifice,  but  only  of  pi^ayers,  or  praises 
and  giving  of  thanks.  They  named  lepel^  and  sacerdotes, 
but  they  meant,  according  to  the  general  etymology  of  those 
words,  such  as  were  occupied  in  distributing  holy  things ;  not 
such  as  should  verUy  sacrifice  the  body  of  Christ  again  to- 
his  Father,  but  offer  the  sacrifice  of  thanksgiving  in  the 
sacrament  of  the  Lord's  supper,  which  after  a  certain  manner, 
Epist.  23.  Bo-  as  St  Augustine  saith,  is  called  the  body  of  Christ,  when  indeed 

nifac.  Decon-  ..."  /iiii  ^    t  %       t       i»    /^^     •  at 

seer,  distinct,  it  IS  the  sacramcut  of  the  body  and  blood  oi  Christ.     And 

2.  cap.  hoc       ...  " 

^idlm^iffii^  it  13  called  the  "  sacrificing"  of  the  body  of  Christ,  not  in 
*^^-  truth   of  the  thing,   but  a  signifying  mystery,  as  Gracian 

citeth  out  of  Jerome. 

Martin,  Martin.    Likewise  when  St  Amtrose  saith,  "  The  consecration  (of 

25  •  .  . 

Lib  d  s       ^^^  body  of  Christ)  with  what  words  is  it,  and  by  whose  speech  1    Of 

c.  4.  our  Lord  Jesus.     For  in  the  rest  that  is  said,  there  is  praise  given  to 

God,  prayer  made  for  the  people,  for  kings,  and  others;  but  when  it 

Sacerdos.  cometh  that  the  venerable  sacrament  must  be  consecrated,  now  the  priest 
useth  not  his  own  words,  but  he  useth  the  words  of  Christ '^.^    And  St 

[}  Si  enim  sacramenta  quamdam  similitudinem  earum  rerum,  quarum 
sacramenta  sunt,  non  haberent,  omnino  sacramenta  non  essent.  Ex 
hac  autem  similitudine  plerumque  etiam  ipsarum  rerum  nomina  acci- 
piunt.  Sicut  ergo  secundum  quendam  modum  sacramentum  corporis 
Christi  corpus  Christi  est,  sacramentum  sanguinis  Christi  sanguis  Christi 
est;  ita  sacramentum  fidei  fides  est.  Nihil  est  autem  aliud  credere, 
quam  fidem  habere.  Augustini  Epist.  ad  Bonifacium.  Epist.  xoviii. 
c.  ix.  ordo  novus.    Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  400.] 

[^  Consecratio  autem  quibus  verbis  est,  et  cujus  sermonibus  1  Domini 
Jesu.  Nam  reliqua  omnia  quae  dicuntur  in  superioribus,  a  sacerdote 
dicuntur,  laudes  Deo  deferuntur,  oratio  petitur  pro  populo,  pro  regibus, 
pro  ceteris;  ubi  venitur  ut  conficiatur  venerabile  sacramentum,  jam 
non  suis  sermonibus  utitur  sacerdos,  sed  utitur  sennonibus  Christi. 
Ambrosii  de  Sacramentis,  Lib.  iv.  c.  iv.     Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  368.] 


Chrysostom  in  very  many  places  saith:   "  The  sacred  oblation  itself,  Hom.  2.  in 
whether  Peter,  or  Paul,  or  any  meaner  priest  whatsoever  offer  it,  is  Saeerdos. 
the  very  same  that  Christ  gave  unto  his  disciples,  and  which  now  the    ^''^^  °^' 
priests  do  make  or  consecrate.    Why  so,  I  pray  thee  ?  because  not  men 
do  sanctify  this,  but  Christ  himself,  which  before  consecrated  the  same^," 
And  again :  "  It  is  not  man  that  maketh  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ, 
but  he  that  was  crucified  for  us,  Christ ;  the  words  are  uttered  by  the  sacerdotis. 
priest's  mouth,  and  by  God's  power  and  grace  are  the  things  proposed 
consecrated.     For  this,  saith  he,  'is  my  body  V    With  this  word  are  the 
things  proposed  consecrated." 

Fulke.  These  testimonies  are  heaped  up  without  any  need,  Fulke, 
for  the  improper  usage  of  these  words  'lepem,  or  saeerdos,  ' 
in  the  ancient  writers  we  do  acknowledge :  but  in  the  holy- 
scripture  you  are  not  able  to  bring  one  place  where  preshy- 
teri  of  the  New  Testament  are  called  sacerdotes,  or  teoets. 
Wherefore  of  the  improper  applying  of  these  names  to  the 
ministers  of  the  New  Testament,  can  follow  no  consequence 
of  external  "  sacrifice,"  or  "  altar,"  which  you  m^ge,  except 
"  sacrifice"  and  "  altar"  be  likewise  used  improperly,  as  where 
the  table  is  called  "  an  altar,"  the  bread  and  wine  "  a  sacri- 
fice," as  in  IrenaBus^  lib.  iv.  cap.  xxxii.  where  also  he  saith, 
that  the  "  sacrifices"  do  not  sanctify  the  man,  but  the  con- 
science of  the  man  being  pure  sanctifieth  the  "  sacrifice," 
and  causeth  God  to  accept  it  as  of  a  friend,  cap.  xxxiv. : 

|_'  'H  irpoacpopa  ^  av-r^  ea-ri,  mv  6  tvxoI>v  TrpoaeveyKj],  kuv  HavXos, 
Kav  Herpos,  17  airij  iariv,  tjv  6  Xpiaros  rots  p.adT)Ta1s  edcoKf,  Kal  fju 
injv  oi  lepels  ttoiovctlv  ovhev  avrq  iXdrrcov  (Kfivrjs,  on  /cat  Tavrrjv  ovk 
avdpanroi  ayia^ov(Tiv,  dXX'  avros  6  Ka\  eKeivrjv  ayiaaas.  Chrysost.  in 
2  Epist.  ad  Timoth.  c.  i.  Hom.  ii.  Opera,  Vol.  xi.  p.  671.  Edit.  Mont- 
faucon.  Par.  1734.] 

P  Ov8e  yap  avdpanros  fariv  6  iroiatv  ra  TvpoKeipuva  yeveadai  a-wpia 
Kai  alpa  Xptarov'  aXK  avros  6  aravpcoSfls  virep  fjpSiv  XpiaTos.  (rx^pa 
TrXrjpcov  e(TTr]K(v  6  Upeiis,  ra  p-qpara  (f)deyy6p€vos  eKelva'  j;  8e  hvvapis 
Ka\  fj  x"P'f  ■'■0*^  Qiov  ea-Ti.  rovro  pov  earl  to  (Tu>pa,  (f)r](n.  Chrysost. 
de  Proditione  Judae,  Hom.  i.     Opera,  Vol.  11.  p.  384.] 

[^  Quoniam  autem  non  indigens  Deus  servitute  eorum,  sed  propter 
ipsos  quasdam  observantias  in  lege  praeceperit,  plenissime  prophetae 
indicant.  Et  rursus  quoniam  non  indiget  Deus  oblatione  eorum,  sed 
propter  ipsum  qui  offerat  hominem,  manifeste  Dominus  docuit,  quem- 
admodum  ostendimus.  Irenaei,  Lib.  iv.  Contra  Haeres.  c.  xvii.  Opera, 
p.  247. 

Igitur  ecclesise  oblatio,  quam  Dominus  docuit  offerri  in  universo 
mundo,  purum  sacrificium  reputatum  est  apud  Deum,  et  acceptum  est 

272  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

which  cannot  in  anywise  be  true  of  the  natural  body  of 

Martin,  Martin.    And  so  by  these  places,  where  themselves  translate  sace)-dos 

Presbyteri.     a  "  priest,"  they  may  learn  also  how  to  translate  presbyteros  in  St  Jerome, 
saying  the  very  same  thing,  "  that  at  their  prayers  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord  is  made ;"  and  in  another  place,  "  that  with  their  sacred 
month  they  make  our  Lord's  body."      Likewise  when  they  read  St 
Ambrose '  against  the  Novatians,  that  God  hath  granted  licence  to  his 
Sacerdotibus.  priests  to  release  and  forgive  as  well  great  sins  as  little,  without  excep- 
tion ;  and  in  the  Ecclesiastical  History^,  how  the  Novatian  heretics  taught 
that  such  as  were  fallen  into  great  sins,  should  not  ask  for  remission  of 
Sacerdote.      the  priest,  but  of  God  only  :  they  may  learn  how  to  translate  presbyteros 
in  St  Jerome^,  and  in  the  Ecclesiastical  History,  where  the  one  saith  thus  : 
Sozom.  lib.  7-  Episcopus  et  presbyter,  cum  peccatorum  audierit  varietates,  scit  qui  ligandus 
Soerat.  lib.  5.  sit,  qui  solvendus  ;  and  the  other  speaketh,  de  presbytero  pcenitentiario, 
of  an  extraordinary  priest,  that  heard  confessions  and  enjoined  penance, 
who  afterward  was  taken  away,  and  the  people  went  to  divers  ghostly 
fathers,  as  before.     And  especially  St  Chrysostom*  wiU  make  them 

ei:  non  quod  indigeat  a  nobis  sacrificium,  sed  quoniam  is  qui  offert, 
glorificatur  ipse  in  eo  quod  offert,  si  acceptetur  munus  ejus.  Irenaei, 
Lib.  IV.     Contra  Hsereses.  c.  xviii.  p.  250.  Edit.  Paris,  1710.] 

p  Similiter  impossibile  videbatur  per  poenitentiam  peccata  dimitti ; 
concessit  hoc  Cliristus  apostolis  suis,  quod  ab  apostolis  ad  sacerdotum 
oflficia  transmissum  est.  Ambrosii  de  Poenitent.  Lib.  ii.  c.  ii.  Opera, 
Vol.  II.  p.  419.] 

P  Sed  aiunt  se,  exceptis  gravioribus  criminibus,  relaxare  veniam 
levioribus.  Non  hoc  quidem  auctor  vestri  erroris  Novitianus,  qui  ne- 
mini  poenitentiam  dandam  putavit ;  ea  scilicet  contemplatione,  ut  quod 
ipse  non  posset  solvere,  non  ligaret,  ne  ligando  sperari  a  se  faceret 
solutionem.  In  eo  igitur  patrem  vestrum  propria  damnatis  sententia, 
qui  distinctionem  peccatorum  facitis,  quae  solvenda  a  vobis  putetis,  et 
qua  sine  remedio  esse  arbitremini:  sed  Dens  distinctionem  non  facit, 
qui  misericordiam  suam  promisit  omnibus,  et  relaxandi  licentiam  sacer- 
dotibus suis  sine  uUa  exceptione  concessit.  Ambrosii  de  Poenitent.  Lib.  i. 
c.  iii.    Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  393.] 

[^  Dupliciter  vero  sanguis  Christi  et  caro  intelligitur :  vel  spirituaUs 
ilia  atque  divina,  de  qua  ipse  dixit,  Caro  mea  vere  est  cibus,  et  sanguis 
mens  vere  potus;  et.  Nisi  manducaveritis  carnem  meum,  et  sanguinem 
meuni  biberitis,  non  habebitis  vitam  ceternam:  vel  caro  et  sanguis,  quae 
crucifixa  est,  et  qui  miiitis  effusus  est  lancea.  Comment.  Hieronymi 
in  Epist.  ad  Ephes.  c.  i.    Opera,  Vol.  iv.  p.  328.] 

P  Ei^oi'  i^ovaiav  ot  Tcjv  'lov8ai(ov  kpels'  koX  oiada  ttcos  TrfpifiaxrjTov 
nv  TO  Twv  lepeav  rare ;  ovroi  be  ov  \iivpav  crdfiaTos,  aW  anadapcriav 
•<lfv)(rjs,  ovK  an-aXXayeio-av  SoKt/io^eif,  aXX*  airoKKaTTeiv  iravTekuii  eXa^ov 
f^ovaiav.   wore    ol    tovtcop   vnepopavres   ttoXXw    km  tS)V   irepl   Aa6av  eUv 

VI.]  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE     BIBLE.  273 

understand  what  these  preshyteri  were,  and  how  they  are  to  be  called  in 

English,  who   telleth  them  in  their  own  word,  that  sacerdotes,   "  the  Lib.  .•j.  de  Sa- 

priests  of  the  new  law,  have  power,  not  only  to  know,  but  to  purge  the 

filth  of  the  soul ;  therefore  whosoever  despiseth  them,  is  more  worthy 

to  be  punished  than  the  rebel  Dathan  and  his  compUces." 

FulJce.  Where  St  Jerome  iiseth  the  word  preshyteri,  we  Fulke, 
will  make  no  great  curtesy  to  translate  "priests ;"  knowing  ^*^- 
that  when  he  saith,  at  then'  prayers  "the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ  is  made,"  he  meaneth  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  as  he  himself  saith  in  another  place  :  Du- 
jpliciter  sanguis  Christi  et  caro  intelligitur ;  "  The  blood  and 
flesh  of  Cln^ist  is  understood  two  manner  of  ways,"  either  that 
spiritual  and  divine,  whereof  he  himself  said,  '  My  flesh  is 
meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed ;  and  except  ye 
shall  eat  my  flesh  and  di'ink  my  blood,  you  shall  not  have 
eternal  life ;""  or  else  the  flesh  and  blood  which  was  cruci- 
fied, and  wliich  was  shed  by  the  spear  of  the  soldier."  This 
and  such  other  places  teach  us  to  understand  St  Jerome, 
if  he  speak  any  where  obscurely  or  improperly  of  the  mystery 
of  our  Lord's  supper.  We  grant  with  Ambrose,  that  God 
hath  given  authority  to  all  the  ministers  of  the  word  to 
remit  all  sins  that  be  remissible.  But  this  do  not  you  grant; 
for  you  reserve  some  to  the  bishops,  and  some  to  the  pope 
alone  to  remit:  wherein  you  go  clean  against  Ambrose,  who 
favoureth  you  not  so  much  by  the  term  sacerdos,  which  you 
say  he  useth,  as  he  condemneth  your  partial  and  popish 
reservation  of  cases,  when  he  alloweth  every  priest  to  for- 
give as  well  great  sins  as  httle,  without  exception.  St 
Jerome  you  cite  at  large,  as  it  seemeth,  to  insinuate  auricular 
confession  :  but  the  whole  saying  you  liked  not,  because  it 
sheweth  how  they  forgive  sins.  It  is  written  in  Matt.  Lib.  iii. 
cap.  16.  upon  those  words  spoken  to  Peter,  "  Unto  thee  will 
I  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,"  &c.  Isfum 
locum  episcopi  et  preshyteri  non  intelligentes^ ,  &c.    "This  place 

evayea-repoi,  Koi  fi(i(ovos  a^ioi  Tificoplas.     Chrysost.  de  Sacerdotio,  Lib.  iii. 
Opera,  Vol.  i.  p.  284.] 

[*  Istum  locum  episcopi  et  preshyteri  non  intelligentes,  aliquid  sibi 
de  Pharisaeorum  assumunt  supercUio  :  ut  vel  damnent  innocentes,  vel 
solvere  se  noxios  arbitrentur;  quum  apud  Deum  non  sententia  sacer- 
dotuni,  sed  reoruin  vita  quaeratur,  Legimus  in  Levitico  de  leprosis, 
ubi  jubentur,  ut  ostendant  se  sacerdotibus ;  et  si  lepram  habuerint,  tunc 


274  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [ 


bishops  and  priests  not  understanding,  take  upon  them  some- 
what of  the  pride  of  the  Pharisees :  so  that  they  tliink  they 
may  either  condemn  the  innocents,  or  loose  the  guilty  persons  : 
whereas  with  God,  not  the  sentence  of  the  priests,  hut  the  life 
of  the  persons  accused  is  inquired  of.  We  read  in  Levi- 
ticus of  the  lepers,  where  they  are  commanded  to  shew 
themselves  to  the  priests;  and  if  they  have  the  leprosy,  then 
by  the  priest  they  are  made  unclean :  not  that  priests  make 
lepers  and  unclean  persons,  but  that  they  may  have  know- 
ledge of  him  that  is  a  leper,  and  him  that  is  no  leper ;  and 
may  discern  who  is  clean  or  who  is  unclean.  Therefore  even 
as  the  priest  doth  there  make  the  leper  clean  or  unclean ;  so 
here  also  the  bishop  and  priest  doth  bind  or  loose,  not  them 
that  be  innocent  or  guilty,  but  according  to  his  office,  when 
he  shall  hear  the  variety  of  sinners,  he  knoweth  who  is 
to  be  bound,  and  who  is  to  be  loosed."  But  where  you 
say,  the  people  went  to  diverse  ghostly  fathers,  as  before, 
when  that  extraordinary  penitentiary  priest  was  taken  away 
for  the  adultery  of  a  deacon  at  Constantinople';  you  speak 
beside  the  book,  to  make  the  ignorant  believe  that  the  people 
went  to  auricular  shrift.  For  in  Constantinople,  where  this 
privy  confession  was  taken  away,  the  people  were  left  to  their 
own  consciences.  At  Rome,  the  same  time,  great  offenders 
did  open  penance,  neither  were  there  any  such  diverse  ghostly 
fathers,  as  you  speak  of.  That  Chrysostom  saith.  Lib.  iii.  de 
sacerdotio,  we  receive  it,  being  so  understood,  as  it  be  not 
contrary  to  that  I  cited  even  now  out  of  Jerome.  But  what 
maketh  all  this  against  translating  presbyter  "  an  elder"  ? 

Martin,  Martin.    Now  then,  to  conclude  this  point,  seeing  we  have  such  a 

Hei)  xii        cloud  of  witnesses,  as  the  apostle  speaketh,  even  from  Christ's  time, 

that  testify  not  only  for  the  name,  but  for  the  very  principal  functions 

a  sacerdote  immundi  fiant :  non  quo  sacerdotes  leprosos  faciant  et  immun- 
dos;  sed  quo  habeant  notitiam  leprosi  et  non  leprosi,  et  possint  dis- 
cernere  qui  mundus,  quive  immundus  sit.  Quomodo  ergo  ibi  leprosum 
sacerdos  mundum  vel  immundum  facit ;  sic  et  hie  alligat  vel  solvit 
episcopus  et  presbyter,  non  eos  qui  insontes  sunt  vel  noxii ;  sed  pro 
officio  suo,  quum  peccatorum  audierit  varietates,  scit  qui  ligandus  sit, 
quive  solvendus.  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Matth.  c.  xvi.  Opera, 
Vol.  IV.  p.  75.] 

\2  See  Socrates,  Eccl.  Hist.  lib.  v.  cap.  xix.  Sozomen.  vii.  xvi.] 


of  external  priesthood,  in  offering  the  sacrifice  of  Christ's  body  and 
blood,  in  remitting  sins,  and  so  forth ;  what  a  peevish,  malicious,  and 
impudent  corruption  is  this,  for  the  defacing  of  the  testimonies  of  the 
holy  scriptures  tending  thereunto,  to  seek  to  scratch  advantage  of  the 
word  presbyter,  and  to  make  it  signify  an  "elder,"  not  a  "priest;" 
presbyterium,  "  eldership,"  rather  than  "  priesthood :"  as  if  other  new- 
fangled companions,  that  would  forge  an  heresy  that  there  were  no  apos- 
tles, should  for  that  purpose  translate  it  always  "legates;"  or  that  there 
were  no  angels,  and  should  translate  it  always  "  messengers  ;"  and  that 
baptism  were  but  a  Judaical  ceremony,  and  should  translate  it  "  wash- 
ing ;"  which  Castaleo  did  much  more  tolerably  in  his  translation  than 
any  of  these  should,  if  he  did  it  only  of  curiosity  and  folly.  And  if  to 
take  away  all  distinction  of  "clergy"  and  "laity,"  the  protestants  should 
always  translate  clerum  "  lot"  or  "  lottery,"  as  they  do  translate  it  for  ciems. 
the  same  purpose  "  parish"  and  "  heritage ;"  might  not  Beza  himself  « j^  j  pet.  v. 
control  them,  saying,  "  that  the  ancient  fathers  transferred  the  name  ad^NeiSr  de 
clerus  to  the  college  of  ecclesiastical  ministers''  1  'i'-  ^'^"'^" 

°  rum,  Ep.  2. 

c.  5. 

FulJce.  A  cloud  of  testimonies  indeed  you  have  heaped  Fulkk, 
together,  not,  as  the  apostle  did,  to  uphold  the  certainty  of 
faith,  but  to  obscure  the  hght  of  truth.  For  our  translation 
of  irpeafii/Tepos  "  an  elder"  is  true,  clear  and  plain,  without 
ambiguity :  insomuch  as  the  vulgar  Latin  interpreter,  who 
(as  it  seemeth)  was  a  Grecian,  and  therefore  useth  gladly  many 
Greek  terms,  doth  yet  translate  this  word  almost  twice  as 
often  senior,  or  major  natu,  as  he  doth  presbyter,  when  he 
speaketh  of  the  ministers  of  the  gospel.  How  the  ancient 
writers  apphed  unto  them  improperly  the  name  of  "sacrificer," 
as  unto  the  sacrament  the  name  of  "  oblation"  or  "  sacrifice,"  I 
have  spoken  already  sufficiently.  Our  translation  therefore  is 
notliing  like  your  vain  supposal  of  new-fangled  companions, 
which  to  deny  "apostles,"  "angels,"  and  "baptism,"  would  turn 
the  words  into  "  legates,"  "  messengers,"  and  "  washing." 
Whereas  we  have  no  purpose  to  deny  any  office  or  function  of 
the  church  appointed  by  Christ,  but  to  distinguish  in  name,  as 
his  Spirit  in  the  scriptures  doth  always,  the  sacrificers  of  the 
Old  Testament  from  the  ministers  of  the  New  Testament. 
The  word  clerus,  1  Pet.  v.  which  we  translate  "parish"  or 
"heritage,"  yourselves  m  your  notes  of  that  place  confess  to 
comprehend  in  signification  "all  Christians,"  which  you  are  not 
able  to  prove,  that  in  St  Peter's  time  it  was  transferred 
unto  the  "college  of  ecclesiastical  ministers,"  as  Beza  saith  it 
was  afterward  :  wherefore  it  is  one  of  your  accustomed  slan- 
ders, to  say  we  translate  it   so  of  purpose   to  take  away 


276  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

all  distinction  of  clergy  and  laity;  when  all  men  know,  that 
wheresoever  our  churches  are  estabhshed,  we  retain  the 
distinction,  and  so  think  it  necessary  always. 

Martin,  Martin.    But,  alas !  the  effect  of  this  corruption  and  heresy  concem- 

^^'  ing  priests,  hath  it  not  wrought  within  these  few  years  such  contempt 

of  all  priests,  that  nothing  is  more  odious  in  our  country  than  that 
name ;  which  before  was  so  honourable  and  venerable,  and  now  is  among 
all  good  men?  If  "ministry"  or  "eldership"  were  grown  to  estimation 
instead  thereof,  somewhat  they  had  to  say:  but  that  is  yet  more  contemp- 
tible, and  especially  "elders"  and  "eldership;""  for  the  queen's  majesty 
and  her  councillors  will  permit  none  in  government  of  any  church  in 
England ;  and  so  they  have  brought  all  to  nothing  else  but  profane  laity. 
And  no  marvel  of  these  horrible  inconveniences:  for  as  the  sacrifice 
and  priesthood  go  together,  and  therefore  were  both  honourable  together ; 
so  when  they  had,  according  to  Daniel's  prophecy,  abolished  the  daily 
sacrifice  out  of  the  church,  what  remained,  but  the  contempt  of  priests 
and  clergy,  and  their  offices  ?  so  far  forth,  that  for  the  holy  sacrifice'  sake 
priests  are  called  in  great  despite  "  massing  priests,"  of  them  that  little 
consider,  or  less  care,  what  notable  holy  learned  fathers  of  all  ages  since 
Chap.  vi.  Christ's  time  this  their  rejiroach  toucheth  and  concerneth,  as  by  the  testi- 
monies before  alleged  is  manifest,  and  whereof  the  reader  may  see  a 
pecuUar  chapter  in  the  late  Apology  of  the  English  Seminaries. 

FuLKE,  FulJce.     A  marvellous   corruption,   for   us  to  call  them 

a  el(Jers,""  whom  you  in  your  translation  call  "ancients,"  and 
the  vulgar  Latin  before  us  both  called  seniores!  But  what  is 
come  to  pass,  I  pray  you,  by  tliis  wonderful  corruption  ? 
The  name  of  "  popish  priests"  is  so  contemptible,  that  nothing 
is  more  odious  in  England.  And  good  cause,  why ;  both 
for  their  blasphemy  agamst  God,  and  traitorous  practices 
against  the  honom^able  state  of  the  realm,  and  our  most  gra- 
cious queen.  But  "  elders"  and  "  eldersliip"  (you  ween)  is 
more  contemptible,  because  "  the  queen's  majesty  and  her 
councillors  will  permit  none  in  government  of  any  churches 
in  England,  and  so  they  have  brought  all  to  notliing  else,  but 
'profane  laity.'  "  This  traitorous  slander  of  yours  is  as  true 
as  all  the  rest :  for  although  the  queen's  majesty  and  the 
council  do  not  permit  such  consistories  of  elders  for  only 
disciphne  and  government,  as  be  in  some  other  churches; 
yet  do  they  not  only  permit,  but  also  maintain  and  reve- 
rence such  elders,  bemg  signified  by  the  Greek  word 
7rpea(3uT€poi,  as  are  necessary  for  the  government  of  the 
church  in  doctrine,  sacraments,  and   discipline,   to  the  salva- 


tion  of  God's  people.  The  daily  sacrifice  mentioned  in 
Daniel  was  the  morning  and  evening  sacrifice  of  the  old 
law,  whereunto  yom*  blasphemous  sacrifice  of  the  mass 
hath  no  resemblance.  You  may  not  therefore  look  to 
recover  the  credit  of  massing  priests  by  that  sacrifice, 
which,  being  once  instituted  by  God,  was  at  length  taken 
away  by  the  only  sacrifice  of  Christ's  death ;  agamst  wliich 
all  the  apologies  in  the  world  shall  never  be  able  to  defend 
your  massing  priesthood.  As  for  the  chapter  of  Allen's 
Apology,  whereunto  you  refer  us,  [it]  containeth  certain  quo- 
tations, and  a  few  sentences  of  the  ancient  writers,  wliich 
have  been  answered  an  hundred  times,  to  justify  massing 
priests ;  but  all  in  vain :  for  never  shall  he  prove  that  any 
one,  from  the  eldest  which  he  named  unto  Beda,  which 
is  the  youngest,  was  such  a  massing  priest  in  all  points, 
as  those  traitors  are,  which  by  the  queen's  laws  and 
edict  arc  proscribed  and  prohibited :  I  mean  not,  for  their 
maimers,  but  for  their  mass  and  all  opinions  incident 




Heretical  Translation  against  Purgatory,   Limbus  Patrum, 
Christ's  descending  into  Hell. 

Martin,  1 

Calvin's  In- 
lib.  2.  c.  16. 
sect.  10.  and 
in  his  Cate- 

FULKE,  1. 

Martin.  Having  now  discovered  their  corrapt  translations  for  de- 
facing of  the  church's  name,  and  abolishing  of  priest  and  priesthood ; 
let  us  come  to  another  point  of  very  great  importance  also,  and  which, 
by  the  wonted  consequence  or  sequel  of  error,  includeth  in  it  many 
erroneous  branches.  Their  principal  malice  then  being  bent  against 
purgatory,  that  is,  against  a  place  where  christian  souls  be  purged  by 
suffering  of  temporal  pains  after  this  life,  for  surer  maintenance  of  their 
erroneous  denial  hereof  they  take  away  and  deny  all  third  places, 
saying  that  there  was  never  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  any  other 
place  for  souls  after  this  life,  but  only  two ;  to  wit,  heaven  for  the 
blessed,  and  hell  for  the  damned.  And  so  it  followeth  by  their  heretical 
doctrine,  that  the  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  other  good  holy  men  of  the 
Old  Testament,  went  not  after  their  deaths  to  the  place  called  "  Abra- 
ham's bosom,"  or  limbus  patrum,  but  immediately  to  heaven :  and  so 
again  by  their  erroneous  doctrine  it  followeth,  that  the  fathers  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  in  heaven  before  our  Saviour  Christ  had  suffered 
death  for  their  redemption ;  and  also  by  their  erroneous  doctrine  it  fol- 
loweth, that  our  Saviour  Christ  was  not  the  first  man  that  ascended  and 
entered  into  heaven  ;  and  moreover  by  their  heretical  doctrine  it  foUow- 
eth,  that  our  Saviour  Christ  descended  not  into  any  such  third  place, 
to  deliver  the  fathers  of  the  Old  Testament  out  of  their  prison,  and  to 
bring  them  triumphantly  with  him  into  heaven,  because  by  their  erro- 
neous doctrine  they  were  never  there ;  and  so  that  article  of  the  apostles' 
creed  concerning  our  saviour  Christ's  descending  into  heU,  must  either 
be  put  out  by  the  Calvinists,  as  Beza  did  in  liis  confession  of  his  faith, 
printed  anno  15()4 ;  or  it  hath  some  other  meaning,  to  wit,  either  the 
lying  of  his  body  in  the  grave,  or  (as  Calvin  and  the  purer  Cal- 
vinists, his  scholars,  will  have  it)  the  suffering  of  hell  pains  and  distresses 
upon  the  cross.  Lo  the  consequence  and  coherence  of  these  errors  and 
heresies ! 

Fulke.  We  may  be  bold  to  say  with  St  Augustine, 
We  believe,  according  to  the  authority  of  God,  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  the  first  place  appointed  for  God's 
elect,  and  that  hell  is  the  second  place,  where  all  the 
reprobate,  and  such  as  be  not  of  the  faith  of  Christ,  shall 
suffer  eternal  punishment.  Tertium  penitus  ignoramus, 
imo  nee  esse   in  scripturis  Sanctis  invenimus :    "The  third 


place  we  are  utterly  ignorant  of,  yea,  and  that  it  is  not 
we  find  in  the  holy  scriptures."  But  hereof  it  foUoweth 
say  you,  that  the  godly  of  the  Old  Testament  went  not 
after  their  deaths  to  Abrahani"'s  bosom,  or  limbus  patrum, 
but  immediately  to  heaven.  Of  limbus  patrum,  which  is 
a  border  of  the  "  pope's  hell,"  I  grant  it  followeth ;  but 
of  Abraham's  bosom  it  followeth  none  otherwise  than  if  I 
should  say,  "Gregorie  Martin  went  into  Cheapside,'""  ergo, 
"he  went  not  to  London."  That  the  fathers  of  the  Old 
Testament  were  in  heaven  before  our  Saviour  Christ  had 
suffered  death  for  their  redemption,  it  is  no  inconvenience  ; 
for  his  death  was  as  effectual  to  redeem  them  that  lived 
before  he  suffered  actually,  as  them  that  live  since  ;  be- 
cause in  God's  sight  he  is  "  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  from 
the  beginning  of  the  world."  And  the  fathers  that  were 
justified  by  faith  in  his  blood,  received  the  same  crown 
and  reward  of  righteousness  that  we  do,  being  justified  by 
the  same  means.  And  yet  our  Saviour  Christ  was  the 
first  man,  that  in  his  whole  manhood  ascended  and  entered 
into  heaven,  into  the  fulness  and  perfection  of  glory,  which 
is  prepared  for  all  God's  elect,  to  be  enjoyed  after  the 
general  resurrection.  That  our  Saviour  Christ  descended 
into  no  prison  after  his  death,  we  verily  beUeve ;  and  yet 
we  do  also  constantly  beheve  the  article  of  our  creed, 
that  "he  descended  into  hell,"  by  suffering  in  soul  the  pains 
due  to  God's  justice  for  the  sins  of  all  whom  he  redeemed, 
and  by  vanquishing  the  devil,  and  aU  the  power  of  hell, 
in  working  the  redemption  of  all  the  children  of  God.  If 
Beza  in  liis  confession  had  clean  left  out  that  article,  (which 
is  untrue,)  he  had  been  no  more  to  be  blamed  than  the 
authors  of  the  Nicene  creed,  and  many  other  creeds,  in 
which  it  is  not  expressed,  because  it  is  partly  contained 
imder  the  article  of  his  sufferings,  partly  it  is  in  part  of 
the   effect  and  virtue  of  his  death   and  redemption. 

Martin.    These  now  being  the  heretical  doctrines  which  they  mean  Martin,  2. 
to  avouch  and  defend,  whatsoever  come  of  it ;  first,  they  are  at  a  point 
not  to  care  a  rush  for  all  the  ancient  holy  doctors,  that  write  with  full 
consent  to  the  contrary,  as  themselves  confess,  calling  it  their  common  Beza  in  i  Pet. 
error;   secondly,  they  translate  the  holy  scriptures  in  favour  thereof  vin's institut. 
most  corruptly  and  Avilfully,  as  in  Beza's  false  translation,  who  is  Calvin's  sect.  y. 
successor  in  Geneva,  it  is  notorious ;  for  he,  in  his  New  Testament  of 

280  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

the  year  1556,  printed  by  Robertus  Stephanas  in  folio,  with  annotations, 

maketh  our  Saviour  Christ  say  thus  to  his  Father,  Non  derelinques 

cadaver  meum  in  sepulchro ;  "  Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  carcase  in  the 

Hiero.  in  Pa.   grave,"  Acts  ii.   for  that  which  the  Hebrew,  and  the  Greek,  and  the 

braeo.  Latin,  and  St  Jerome,  according  to  the  Hebrew,  say,  Non  derelinques 

tir£)3  animam  meam  in  inferno,  as  plainly  as  we  say  in  English,  "  Thou  shalt 

SS>*W"T.      "^*  \G?i^e  my  soul  in  hell."    Thus  the  proj^het  David  spake  it  in  the 

:  •        Hebrew,  Psal.  xv. ;  thus  the  Septuagint  uttered  it  in  Greek ;  thus  the 

apostle  St  Peter  allegeth  it ;  thus  the  holy  evangelist  St  Luke,  in  the 

xf/uX'i"  e'^    Acts  of  the  Apostles,  chap,  ii.,  recordeth  it ;  and  for  this,  St  Augustine 

"°°'"'*  calleth  him  an  infidel  that  denieth  it :  yet  all  this  would  not  suffice  to 

•  See  his  An-  make  Beza  translate  it  so,  because  of  certain  errors,  (*as  he  heretically 

not.  in  2.  Act.  temieth  them,)  which  he  would  full  gladly  avoid  hereby,  namely,  the 

catholic  true  doctrine  of  limbus  patrum  and  "  purgatory."    What  need 

we  say  more  ?    He  translateth  animam,   "  a  carcase ;"  so   calling  our 

Saviour  Christ's  body,  irreverently  and  wickedly,  he  translateth  infe)-- 

num  "grave.'' 

FuLKE,  2.  Fulke.  That  many  of  the  christian  fathers  held  this 
error,  that  the  godly  of  the  Old  Testament  were  not  in 
heaven  before  Clu-ist's  death,  it  is  no  cause  why  we  should 
be  afraid  to  confess  the  truth  revealed  to  us  out  of  the 
holy  scriptm-es,  to   the   glory   of   God.      And  if  the  wrong 

Vii^Ii^  or  ambiguous  translation  of  one  Hebrew  word,  sheol,  de- 
ceived them  that  were  for  the  most  part  ignorant  of  the 
Hebrew  tonffue :  what  reason  were  it  that  we  should  not 
in  translation  reform  that  error  ?  But  as  for  Beza's  first 
translation  of  the  Greek  word  ^v^n  "  dead  body,"  and 
adr}^  "  grave,"  I  have  answered  at  large,  cap.  i.  sect.  31. ; 
where  also  it  is  shewed,  how  vainly  you  take  hold  of  the 
English  word  "  carcase,"  to  charge  Beza  with  unreverent 
calling  of  our  Saviour  Christ's  body,  when  it  was  dead, 
because  he  calleth  it  in  Latin  cadaver. 

Martin  3.  Martin.  Need  we  take  any  great  labour  to  prove  this  to  be  a  foul 
corruption,  or  that  it  is  done  purposely,  when  he  confesseth  that  he  thus 
translateth,  because  else  it  would  serve  the  papists  ?  Which  is  as  much 
to  say,  as,  the  word  of  God,  if  it  be  ti-uly  and  sincerely  translated,  maketh 
indeed  for  them.  For  the  first  part,  we  will  not  stand  upon  it,  partly 
because  it  is  of  itself  most  absurd,  and  they  are  ashamed  of  it ;  partly 
because  it  shall  suffice  to  confute  Beza,  that  two  other  as  famous  heretics 
as  he,  Castaleo  and  Flaccus  lUyricus,  write  against  him  in  this  point, 
and  confute  him ;  partly  also,  because  we  speak  not  here  universally 
of  all  heretical  translations,  but  of  the  English  corruptions  specially ; 
and  therefore  we  may  only  note  here,  how  gladly  they  also  woiild  say 


somewhat  else  for  "  soul,"  even  in  the  text,  if  they  durst  for  shame : 
for  in  the  margin  of  that  English  translation  they  say,  "  or  life,"  "  or  Bib.  an.  1579. 
person ;"  hereby  advertising  the  reader,  that  he  may  read  thus  if  it 
please  him,  "  Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  life  in  the  grave,"  or,  "  Thou 
shalt  not  leave  my  person."  As  though  either  man's  soul  or  life  were 
in  the  grave,  or  anima  might  be  translated  "  person,"  which  the  self- 
same English  bible  doth  not ;  no,  not  in  ,those  places  where  it  is  evident  Acts  vii.  14. 
that  it  signifieth  "  the  whole  person,"  For  though  this  word  "  soul,''  by 
a  figure,  is  sometime  taken  for  "the  whole  man,"  yet  even  there  they  do 
not,  nor  must  not  translate  it  otherwise  than  "soul;"  because  our 
tongue  beareth  that  figure  as  well  as  Latin,  Greek,  or  Hebrew;  but 
here,  where  it  cannot  signify  "  the  whole  person,"  it  is  wicked  to  translate 
it  so. 

Fulke.  If  you  take  more  labour  than  you  are  well  Fulke,  3. 
able  to  bear,  yet  shall  you  prove  it  no  heretical  corrup- 
tion. As  Castaleo  and  Illyricus,  the  one  an  heretic,  the 
other  a  scliismatic,  have  inveighed  against  Beza,  so  hath 
he  sufficiently  confuted  them.  But  to  our  English  trans- 
lation, where  in  the  margin  they  say  "life,"  or  "person," 
when  in  the  text  they  say  "  soul ;"  what  doth  this  offend 
you  ?  They  render  the  usual  Enghsh  word  for  the  Greek 
word,  but  they  admonish  the  reader  that  the  word  "  soul" 
in  tliis  place  signifieth  not  the  soul  separated  from  the 
body,  but  either  "the  life,"  or  "the  whole  person;"  because 
that,  although  the  body  only  be  laid  in  the  grave,  yet 
according  to  vulgar  speech  and  sense  the  whole  man  is 
said  to  be  bm-ied,  and  liis  life  seemeth  to  be  inclosed  in 
the  grave,  according  to  which  popular  and  humane  con- 
ceit the  prophet  in  that  psalm  speaketh ;  as  appeareth 
in  the  latter  part  of  that  verse,  which  is  all  one  in  sense 
with  the  former,  "neither  wilt  thou  give  thy  holy  one  to 
see  corruption,"  where  corruption,  which  is  proper  only  to 
the  body,  is  there  spoken  generally  of  the  whole  man. 
If  tliis  exposition  please  you  not,  yet  you  have  no  cause 
to  find  fiiult  with  the  translation,  which  in  that  place  is 
according  to  the  common  and  ordinary  signification  of 
the  Greek  word  ^v-^rj,  "soul;"  which,  as  it  is  some-^cuii 
time  taken  for  the  whole  person,  as  you  note,  Act.  vii.  14, 
so  is  it  here,  as  the  latter  part  of  the  verse  doth  most 
plainly  declare'. 

\^  "Ort  ovK  fyKaraXei-^eis  Trjv  ^vxt)v  fiov  ds  abov,     Acts  ii.  27.  "  Quo- 
niam  non  derelinques  animam  meam  in  inferno,"  Vulg.] 

282  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [[cH. 

Martin,  4.        Martin.     But  as  for  the  word  "grave,"  that  they  put  boldly  in  the 

text,  to  signify  that,  howsoever  you  interpret  "  soul,"  or  whatsoever  you 

put  for  it,  it  is  not  meant  according  to  St  Augustine  and  the  faith  of  the 

whole  catholic  church,  that  his  soul  descended  into  hell,  whiles  his  body 

was  in  the  grave  ;  but  that  his  soul  also  was  in  the  grave,  howsoever 

that  is  to  be  understood.     So  making  it  a  certain  and  resolute  conclusion, 

that  the  holy  scripture  in  this  place  speaketh  not  of  Christ's  being  in 

hell,  but  m  the  grave ;  and  that  according  to  his  soul,  or  life,  or  person. 

See  Vigors'     or,  as  Beza  will  have  it,  "  his  carcase  or  body ;"  and  so  "  his  soul  in 

no"i°5!'and  hell,"  as  the  holy  scripture  speaketh,  shall  be  "  his  body  in  the  grave," 

eincepb.       ^^  Beza  plainly  speaketh,  and  the  Bezites  covertly  insinuate ;  and  white 

shall  be  black,  and  chalk  shall  be  cheese,  and  every  thing  shall  be  any 

thing  that  they  will  have  it.    And  aU  this  their  evident  false  translation 

must  be  to  our  miserably  deceived  poor  souls  the  holy  scripture  and 

God's  word. 

FuLKE,  4.  Fulke.  The  Greek  word  a5>j9  well  beareth  to  be  trans- 
lated in  some  places  "  a  grave,"  and  here  the  latter  part  of 
the  verse  speaketh  of  corruption,  which  cannot  be  under- 
stood to  be  but  "in  the  grave ;"  and  so  doth  St  Peter  under- 
stand it,  saying,  "  that  David  the  patriarch  died,  and  was 
buried,  and  his  sepulchre  remaineth  with  us  unto  this  day:" 
and  St  Paul  upon  the  same  verse  of  the  psalm  saith,  "  he 
saw  corruption."  Both  the  apostles  therefore  interpreting 
this  verse  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  we  think  it  indeed  a 
"resolute  conclusion,""  that  the  scripture  in  tliis  place  speaketh 
not  of  Christ's  being  in  hell,  which  we  acknowledge  in  the 
article  of  our  creed,  but  of  his  burial  and  resurrection.  Your 
trifling  of  "wliite  and  black,"  "chalk  and  cheese,"  may  seem 
pleasant  rhetoric  to  gross  ears,  whom  you  seek  to  fill  with  such 
vanities  :  but  the  wiser  sort,  that  are  acquainted  with  figura- 
tive speeches,  will  think  it  nothing  strange,  if  words  be  not 
always  taken  in  their  usual  and  proper  signification.  That 
{^22  the  Hebrew  word  nephesh,  which  the  prophet  in  that  verse 
of  the  psalm  useth,  is  taken  divers  times  in  the  scripture 
for  "  a  dead  body,"  I  have  before  proved  more  plainly  than 
ever  you  shall  be  able  to  deny :  where  you  may,  if  you 
be  disposed  to  sport  yourself,  use  your  figurative  compari- 
son of  "white  and  black,"  "chalk  and  cheese  ;"  but  you  shall 
sooner  of  white  make  black,  of  chalk  cheese,  than  you  can 
possibly  avoid  the  clear  light  of  those  texts,  which  was  seen 
even  of  your  own  vulgar  Latin  interpreters. 

VIl.j  TRANSLATIONS    OF    THE    BIBLE.  283 

Martin.    Where  we  cannot  but  marvel,  why  they  are  afraid  to  trans-  Martin,  5. 
late  the  words  plainly  in  this  place,  "of  his  soul  being  in  hell ;"  whereas 
in  the  creed  they  admit  the  words,  and  interpret  them,  that  by  suffering 
hell  pains  upon  the  cross,  so  "  he  descended  into  hell,"  and  no  otherwise. 
Why  did  they  not  here  also  keep  the  words  for  the  credit  of  their  trans- 
lation ;  and  afterward,  if  they  would  needs,  give  them  that  gloss  for 
maintenance  of  their  heresy  ?     This  mystery  we  know  not,  and  would 
gladly  learn    it   of  the  puritan  Calvinists,  whose   English  translation 
perhaps  this  is.     For  the  grosser  Calvinists,  being  not  so  pure  and  precise 
in  following  Calvin  as  the  puritans  be,  that  have  well   deserved  that 
name  above  their  fellows,  they  in  their  other  English  bibles  have  in  Bib.  an.  i562. 
this  place  discharged  themselves  of  false  translation,  saying  plainly,  ^""^  '^^^' 
"Thou  shalt  not  leave  my  soul  in  helF."    But  in  what  sense  they  say  *seeLmd. 
so,  it  is  very  hard  to  guess ;  and  perhaps  themselves  cannot  tell  yet  "^"''^'-  p-  ^^• 
what  to  make  of  it,  as  appeareth  by  M.  Wliitaker's  answer  to  F.  Cam-  whitaker, 
pion.    And  he  is  now  called  a  bishop  among  them,  and  proceeded  doctor  Si.Htes2,bp. 
in  Oxford,  that  could  not  obtain  his  grace  to  proceed  doctor  in  Cam- ?^  ?,*;  ■f^*'^^' 

1/-,  "^  Wales. 

bndge,  because  he  preached  Christ's  descending  into  hell ;  and  the 
puritans  in  their  second  admonition  to  the  parliament,  p.  43,  cry  out 
against  the  politic  Calvinists,  for  that  in  the  creed  of  the  apostles,  (made 
in  English  metre,  and  sung  openly  in  their  churches,  in  these  words'', 
"  His  spirit  did  after  tliis  descend,  into  the  lower  parts,  to  them  that 
long  [in  darkness  were,  the  true  light  of  their  hearts,")  they  favour  his 
descendmg  into  hell  very  much,  and  so  consequently  may  thereby  build 
limbuspatrum  and  "purgatory."  And  the  puritans  in  their  second  reply 
against  M,  Whitgift's  defence,  p.  7,  reprehend  one  of  their  cliiefest 
Calvinistical  martyrs  for  assuming,  as  they  term  it,  a  gross  descending 
of  our  Saviour  Christ  into  hell.  Thus,  the  puritans  confess  plainly  their 
heretical  doctrine,  against  Christ's  descending  into  hell. 

[}  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  hell."  Acts  ii.  27.  Edits.  1562, 
1568.  1584.    "Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  in  grave,"  1560,  1579.] 

P  William  Hughes  received  liis  first  education  in  Oxford,  but  sub- 
sequently went  to  Christ  College,  Cambridge,  where  he  took  his  degrees 
in  arts,  and  holy  orders ;  and  being  soon  after  made  chaplain  to  Thomas 
Howard,  duke  of  Norfolk,  he  attended  him  to  Oxford  in  1568,  where  he 
was  incorporated  bachelor  of  divinity,  as  he  stood  at  Cambridge.  The 
year  after,  says  Wood,  the  said  duke  writing  letters  to  Dr  Laur.  Hum- 
phrey in  his  behalf,  he  was,  by  his  endeavours  made  to  the  Vice-Chan- 
cellor  and  convocation,  permitted  to  proceed  in  his  faculty.  He  was 
promoted  to  the  episcopal  see  of  St  Asaph  in  1573.  Wood's  Athenae 
Vol.  II.  844.] 

P  The  lines  in  Sternhold  and  Hopkins,  upon  the  twelve  Articles  of 
the  Christian  Faith,  are  these : 

"  His  soul  did  after  this  descend 
Into  the  lower  parts,  ' 

A  dread  unto  the  wicked  sprites. 
But  joy  to  faithful  hearts."] 

284  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

FuLKE,  5.  Fulke.  By  confessing  in  our  creed  that  Christ  "descended 
into  hell,"  you  might  know,  (but  that  you  had  rather  be  igno- 
rant, that  you  might  marvel  still,)  that  we  purposed  not  in 
translating  this  place  to  deny  that  article,  as  you  falsely 
slander  us ;  but  because  this  place  might  seem  unto  the 
ignorant  to  confirm  the  error  of  Christ's  descending  into 
limhus  patrum,  as  it  doth  not,  if  it  be  rightly  under- 
stood, it  was  thought  good  of  some  translators,  that  (seeing 
this  verse  must  have  the  same  sense  in  the  Greek  sermon 
of  Peter,  that  it  hath  in  the  Hebrew  psalm  of  David,  and 
the  Greek  word  q^m,  used  by  the  evangelist  instead  of 
^iXtp  the  Hebrew  word  sheol,  may  bear  to  signify  a  "grave,"  as  the 
Hebrew  word  doth  most  usually,)  by  translating  it  the  "grave," 
to  shew  that  this  verse  in  Greek  maketh  no  more  for  that 
error  of  descending  into  limhus,  than  the  same  doth  in 
Hebrew.  As  for  yom^  distinction  of  gross  Calvinists  and 
puritans,  it  may  be  packed  up  among  the  rest  of  your  quar- 
rels and  slanders.  What  Master  Whitaker  hath  written  in  his 
answer  to  friar  Campion,  he  is  able  to  explain  unto  you  himself, 
if  you  do  not  imderstand  him.  That  the  bishop  of  Saint 
Asaph  did  once  favour  your  error  in  some  part,  and  for  that 
was  misliked  of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  it  is  as  true,  as 
that  afterward,  refornung  his  judgment  at  Oxford,  where  he 
proceeded,  he  was  also  incorporated  doctor  at  Cambridge. 
The  Enghsh  metre  upon  the  creed,  except  it  be  drawn  to  an 
allegory,  in  my  judgment  cannot  be  defended ;  which  judg- 
ment I  declared  openly  at  Paul's  cross,  fourteen  or  fifteen 
years  ago.  Master  Latimer's  error  of  Clirist  suiFering  tor- 
ments in  hell,  after  his  death,  is  justly  reprehended,  by  whom- 
soever it  be.^  By  all  which  I  know  not  what  may  be  rightly 
gathered,  but  that  we  flatter  not  one  another  in  errors;  but 

[^  In  Latimer's  sermon  on  the  Passion  of  Christ,  we  find  him  thus 
speaking,  and  affixmg  a  different  sense  to  the  words,  "He  descended 
into  hell,"from  that  which  they  have  been  generally  considered  to  bear : 
"He  descended  into  hell.  I  see  no  inconvenience  to  say,  that  Christ 
suffered  in  soul  in  hell.  I  singularly  commend  the  exceeding  great 
charity  of  Christ,  who  for  our  sakes  would  suffer  in  hell  in  his  soul. 
It  sets  out  the  unspeakable  hatred  that  God  hath  to  sin.  I  perceive 
not  that  it  derogates  from  the  dignity  of  Christ's  death ;  as  in  the  garden 
when  he  suffered,  it  derogates  nothing  from  that  which  he  suffered 
on  the  cross."] 


if  any  among  us  be  deceived,  of  what  account  or  credit  soever 
he  be,  we  spare  not  to  reprove  liis  error,  preferring  God's 
truth  before  all  worldly  and  private  respects  of  friendsliip, 
countenance,  credit,  and  whatsoever. 

Martin.  The  truth  is,  howsoever  the  politic  Calvinists  speak  orMARxiK.e. 
write  in  this  pomt,  more  plausibly  and  covertly  to  the  people,  and  more 
agreeably  to  the  article  of  our  faith,  than  either  Calvin,  or  their  earnest 
brethren,  the  puritans,  do,  which  write  and  speak  as  fantastically  and 
madly  as  they  tliink;  yet  neither  do  they  believe  this  article  of  the 
apostles'  creed,  or  interpret  it  as  the  catholic  church  and  ancient  holy 
fathers  always  have  done,  neither  can  it  stand  with  their  new  profession 
so  to  do,  or  with  then-  English  translations  in  other  places.  It  cannot 
stand  with  their  profession  ;  for  then  it  would  follow  that  the  patriarchs, 
and  other  just  men  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  in  some  third  place  of 
rest,  caUed  "  Abraham's  bosom,"  or  limhus  patrum,  tiU  our  Saviour  Christ 
descended  thither,  and  delivered  them  from  thence;  which  they  deny 
in  their  doctrine,  though  they  sing  it  in  their  metres.  Neither  can  it 
stand  with  their  English  translations;  because  in  other  places,  where 
the  holy  scriptures  evidently  speak  of  such  a  place,  calling  it  "  hell," 
(because  that  was  a  common  name  for  every  place  and  state  of  souls 
departed  in  the  Old  Testament,  till  our  Savioui*  Christ,  by  his  resur- 
rection and  ascension,  had  opened  heaven,)  there,  for  "  hell,"  they  trans- 
late "grave." 

Fulke.  The  truth  is,  howsoever  you  slander  us  with  Fulke,  fi. 
odious  names  of  schism,  and  diverse  Interpretations,  we  all 
agree  in  the  faith  of  that  article,  and  in  the  true  sense  and 
meaning  thereof.  As  also  we  consent  against  your  errors  of 
limhus  patrum,  or  any  descending  of  Christ  into  that  fan- 
tastical place.  As  for  "Abraham's  bosom,"  we  account  it  no 
place  of  descent,  or  going  down,  but  of  ascending;  even  the 
same  that  our  Saviour  Christ  upon  the  cross  called  "  para- 
dise," Lukexxiii.  saying  to  the  penitent  thief,  "This  day  thou 
shalt  be  with  me  in  paradise;"  which  of  St  Paul  is  called  "the 
third  heaven,"  2  Cor.  xii.,  saying  that  he  was  "  taken  up  into 
the  third  heaven,  whether  in  the  body,  or  out  of  the  body, 
he  knew  not,  but  he  was  taken  up  into  paradise,  and  there 
heard  words  that  could  not  be  uttered,  wliich  it  is  not  law- 
ful for  a  man  to  speak."  And  that  "Abraham's  bosom"  is  a 
place  far  distant  from  hell,  that  only  text  where  it  is  named, 
Luke  xvi.,  doth  evidently  declare.  First,  the  angels  carry 
the  soul  of  Lazarus  into  Abraham's  bosom :  he  mio-ht  as  well 

286  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

have  said  hell,  if  he  had  meant  hell.  But  angels  use  not  to 
go  down  into  hell.  Secondly,  it  is  a  place  of  comfort;  for 
Lazarus  was  there  comforted.  Thirdly,  there  is  a  great  chaos, 
which  signifieth  an  infinite  distance,  between  Abraham  and  the 
rich  glutton;  which  utterly  overthroweth  that  di^eam  of  lim- 
hus,  which,  signifying  a  border  or  edge,  supposeth  that  place 
to  be  hard  adjoining  to  the  place  of  torments.  Last  of  all,  if 
the  article  of  our  faith  had  been  of  limbus  patrum,  or  of 
"Abraham's  bosom,"  we  should  have  been  taught  to  say,  he 
descended  into  limbo  patrum,  or  he  descended  into  Abraham's 
bosom,  which  all  christian  ears  abhor  to  hear.  The  word 
bSi^W  sheol,  used  in  the  Old  Testament  for  a  common  receptacle 
of  all  the  dead,  signifieth  properly  a  place  to  receive  their 
bodies,  and  not  their  souls;  and  therefore  most  commonly 
in  our  translations  is  called  "  the  grave." 

Martin,?.        Martin.    As  when  Jacob  saith,  Descendam  ad  filium  meum  lugens  in 
Gen.  xxxvii.  infemum ;  "  I  will  go  down  to  my  son  into  hell,  mourning :"  they 
translate,  "  I  wiU  go  down  into  the  grave  unto  my  son,  mourning® :''  as 
though  Jacob  thought  that  his  son  Joseph  had  been  buried  in  a  grave; 
whereas  Jacob  thought,  and  said  immediately  before,  as  appeareth  in 
the  holy  scripture,  that  a  wild  beast  had  devoured  him,  and  so  could 
not  be  presumed  to  be  in  any  grave  :  or  as  though,  if  Joseph  had  been 
in  a  grave,  Jacob  would  have  gone  down  to  him  into  the  same  grave. 
For  so  the  words  must  needs  import,  if  they  take  "  grave"  properly ; 
but  if  they  take  "  grave"  unproperly,  for  the  state  of  dead  men  after 
7^)^^        this  life,  why  do  they  call  it  "grave,"  and  not  *'hell,"  as  the  word  is 
a5))s.  in  Hebrew,  Greek,  and  Latin  ?     No  doubt  they  do  it  to  make  the  igno- 

rant reader  believe,  that  the  patriarch  Jacob  spake  of  his  body  only,  to 
descend  into  the  grave  to  Joseph's  body ;  for  as  concerning  Jacob's  soul, 
that  was,  by  their  opinion,  to  ascend  immediately  after  his  death  to 
heaven,  and  not  to  descend  into  the  grave.  But  if  Jacob  were  to  ascend 
forthwith  in  soul,  how  could  he  say,  as  they  translate,  "  I  will  go  down 
into  the  grave  unto  my  son"  1  As  if  according  to  their  opinion  he 
should  say,  "  My  son's  body  is  devoured  of  a  beast,  and  his  soul  is  gone 
up  into  heaven ;  well,  I  will  go  down  to  him  into  the  grave." 

FuLKE,  7.  Fiilke.  A  proper  quiddity  you  have  found  out  of  Jacob, 
supposing  liis  son  to  be  devoured  of  wild  beasts  :  yet  saith,  "  I 
will  go  down  unto  liim  mourning;"  which  you  think  cannot  be 

P  "  I  will  go  doMTi  into  the  grave  unto  my  son  mourning,"  Cran- 
mer's  Bible,  edition,  1562.  Bishop's  Bible,  1684.  Geneva,  1560.  'Ort 
KaTo^tjaofiai,  npos  tov  vlov  fiov  TTfvOatv  (Is  abov.      Gen.  xxxvii.  36.") 


into  the  grave,  because  he  did  not  think  he  was  buried.  But 
you  must  remember,  it  is  the  common  manner  of  speech, 
when  men  say  in  mourning,  they  will  go  to  their  friends 
departed,  they  mean  they  will  die,  although  their  friends 
perhaps  were  drowned  in  the  sea,  or  then'  bodies  burned,  or 
perhaps  lie  in  desolate  places  unburied.  So  Jacob's  descend- 
ing into  the  grave  signifieth  no  more  but  death,  by  wliich  he 
knew  he  should  be  joined  to  his  son  in  soul,  though  he  were 
not  in  body.  The  name  of  grave  is  used,  because  it  is  usual, 
that  dead  men  are  buried,  though  it  be  not  miiversal.  And 
that  the  grave  is  taken  commonly  for  death,  it  appeareth  by 
that  phrase  so  often  used  in  the  scriptures,  "he  slept  with  his 
fathers,  and  was  buried;"  wliich  being  spoken  mdifferently  of 
good  men  and  evil,  cannot  be  understood  of  one  place  of  their 
souls,  but  of  death,  wliich  is  common  to  all,  and  is  proper  to 
the  body,  not  unto  the  soul ;  for  the  souls  of  the  departed 
sleep  not.  The  like  is  to  be  said  of  the  phrase  used  in  Genesis 
of  Ismael,  as  well  as  of  the  godly  patriarchs,  "he  was  laid  up 
to  his  people."  And  lest  you  should  please  yourself  too  much  in 
your  cliildish  conceit  of  Joseph's  being  devom^ed,  (whereof  yet 
his  father  was  not  certain,)  you  sliaU  hear  how  Isidorus  Clarius 
translateth  the  same  place  in  his  bible,  censured  by  the  depu- 
ties of  Trent  council,  Descendam  ad  jilium  meum  lugens  in 
sepidchrum :  "I  will  go  down  to  my  son,  mourning  into  my 
grave."  This  is  one  of  the  places  which  he  thought  meet  to  be 
corrected,  according  to  the  Hebrew ;  and  in  other  places,  where 
he  is  content  to  use  the  old  word,  infernus,  he  signifieth  in 
his  notes,  that  he  meaneth  thereby  sepulcrum,  "  the  grave." 
And  indeed  this  word  infernus  signifieth  generally  any  place 
beneath;  as  the  Greek  word  a.^r\<i,  which  the  Greek  translators 
used  for  sheol,  the  Hebrew  word,  signifieth  a  place  that  is 
dark  and  obscure,  where  nothmg  can  be  seen,  such  as  the 
grave  or  pit  is,  in  which  the  dead  are  laid,  wliich  therefore 
of  Job  is  called,  "The  land  of  darkness,  and  the  shadow  of  Job  x. 

Martin.    Gentle  reader,  that  thou  mayest  the  better  conceive  these  Martin,  ; 
absurdities,  and  the  more  detest  their  guileful  corruptions,  understand, 
as  we  began  to  tell  thee  before,  that  in  the  Old  Testament,  because  there 
was  yet  no  ascending  into  heaven,  "  the  way  of  the  holies"  (as  the  apostle  Heb.  ix.  8. 
in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  speaketh)  "  being  not  yet   made  open,"  Heb.  x.  20. 
because  our  Saviour  Christ  was  to  dedicate  and  begin  the  entrance  in 

288  A    DEFENCE    OP    THE    ENGLISH  [cil. 

his  own  person,  and  by  his  passion  to  open  heaven ;  therefore,  we  say, 
in  the  Old  Testament  the  common  phrase  of  the  holy  scripture  is,  even 
of  the  best  men,  as  well  as  of  others,  "that  dying  they  went  down" 
ad  inferos,  or  ad  hifernum:  to  signify,  that  such  was  the  state  of  the 
Old  Testament  before  our  Saviour  Christ's  resurrection  and  ascension, 
that  every  man  went  down,  and  not  up ;  descended,  and  not  ascended : 
by  descending,  I  mean  not  to  the  grave,  which  i-eceived  their  bodies 
only,  but  ad  inferos,  that  is,  "to  hell,"  a  common  receptacle  or  place 
for  their  souls  also  departed,  as  well  of  those  souls  that  were  to  be 
in  rest,  as  those  that  were  to  be  in  pains  and  torments.  All  the  souls 
both  good  and  bad,  that  then  died,  went  downward;  and  therefore  the 
place  of  both  sorts  was  called  in  all  the  tongues  by  a  word  answer- 
able to  this  word  "hell,"  to  signify  a  lower  place  beneath,  not  only 
of  torments,  but  also  of  rest. 

FuLKE,  8.  Fulke.  Where  you  reason  that  there  was  no  ascending 
mto  heaven,  "because  the  way  of  the  hohes  was  not  yet  made 
open,  when  the  first  tabernacle  was  standing,"  you  abuse  the 
reader  and  the  scripture.  For  the  apostle's  meaning  is,  in 
that  verse,  to  shew  that  to  the  great  benefit  of  Christians  that 
first  tabernacle  is    fallen,   because   that  now   we  have  more 

Heb.  iv.  16.  familiar  access  unto  God  by  Jesus  Christ.  For  whereas 
the  high  priest  only  but  once  in  the  year,  and  then  not  with- 
out blood,  entered  into  the  second  most  holy  tabernacle,  be- 
cause the  way  of  the  hohes,  that  is,  unto  the  holiest,  or  sancta 
sanctorum,  was  not  then  opened ;  now  our  Saviour  Christ 
having  once  entered  into  the  holiest  place  by  his  own  blood, 
and  foimd  eternal  redemption,  we  have  by  liim,  without  any 
ceremonies,  sacrifices,  or  mediation  of  any  mortal  priest,  free 

Heb.  X.  m.  access  unto  the  throne  of  grace,  even  into  the  holy  place,  by 
the  new  and  living  way,  Avhich  he  hath  prepared  for  us.  But 
all  tliis  is  to  be  understood  of  the  clear  revelation  of  the 
mercy  of  God  m  Christ,  wliich  was  obscurely  set  forth  mito 
the  fathers  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  not  of  the  eifect  and 
fruit  of  his  passion,  which  was  the  same  for  their  salvation, 
that  it  is  for  ours.  Neither  have  the  souls  of  the  faitliful, 
since  the  coming  of  Christ,  any  other  place  of  rest,  than  the 

Heb.  xi.  40.  fathers  had  before  his  incarnation;  God  providing  most  wisely, 
that  they  without  all  the  rest  of  their  brethren,  that  shall  be 
unto  the  world's  end,  shall  not  be  made  perfect.  And  whereas 
you  say,  that  all  the  souls  of  good  and  bad  then  went  down- 
ward, you  are  controlled  by  the  wise  man,  Eccles.  iii.,  where 
he  speaketh   in  the  person  of  the  carnal  man,   doubting   of 


that  which  is  not  comprehended  by  reason,  but  beheved  by 
faith :  "  Who  knoweth  whether  the  spirit  of  man  ascend  up- 
ward?"— and  more  plainly  in  the  last  chapter  of  that  book, 
where  he  exhorteth  to  repentance,  shewing  in  the  end,  "that 
though  dust  return  to  the  earth  from  whence  it  was,  yet  the 
spirit  returneth  to  God  that  gave  it."  It  returneth  to  God: 
therefore  it  goeth  not  down.  For  who  would  abide  to  hear 
tliis  speech,  The  souls  of  the  faithful  went  downward  to  God : 
yea,  went  into  hell  to  God '?  nay,  returned  downward  into 
hell  to  God  that  gave  them  ?  That  common  receptacle  there- 
fore of  the  dead  was  the  receptacle  of  their  boches,  wliich  all, 
first  or  last,  returned  to  the  earth  from  whence  they  were 
taken.  And  where  you  say,  that  place  was  called  in  aU 
tongues  by  such  a  word  as  signifieth  a  lower  place  beneath,  it 
is  true  of  the  common  receptacle  of  their  bodies,  but  not  of 
then*  soids.  For  the  soul  of  Lazarus  was  not  carried  by  the 
angels  into  hell,  but  into  Abraham's  bosom  ;  which  was  not 
only  a  place  of  rest,  but  also  of  joy  and  comfort,  contrary  to 
torments ;  between  wliich  and  hell  was  an  infinite  distance. 
Who  would  call  that  a  common  receptacle,  when  there  was  an 
infinite  distance  unpassable  from  one  to  the  other  ? 

Martin.     So  we  say  in  our  creed,  that  our  Saviour  Christ  himself  Martin,  9. 

descended  into  "hell,"  according  to  his  soul:  so  St  Hierome,  speaking  Epitaph.  Ne- 

of  the  state  of  the  old  testament,   saith  :    Si  Abraham,  Isaac,    Jacob  ^°^'  '^  ' 

in  inferno,  quis  in  ccelorum  regno  ?    that  is,  "  If  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 

Jacob  were  in  hell,  who  was  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven  V    And  again  : 

Ante  Christum  Abraham  apitd  inferos  :   post  Christum  latro  in  Paradiso  : 

that  is,  "  Before  the  coming  of  Christ,  Abraham  was  in  hell ;  after  his 

coming,  the  thief  was  in  paradise."    And  lest  a  man  might  object,  that  Lukexvi. 

Lazarus,  being  in  Abraham's  bosom,  saw  the  rich  glutton  afar  off  in 

hell,  and  therefore  both  Abraham  and  Lazarus  seem  to  have  been  in 

heaven :  the  said  holy  doctor  resolveth  it,  that  Abraliam  and  Lazarus  See  s.  Au- 
gust, in  Psal. 
Ixxxv.  13.1 

[}  Aliam  etiam  opinionem  dicam.  Fortassis  enim  apud  ipsos  inferos 
est  aliqua  pars  inferior,  quo  truduntur  impii  qui  plurimum  peccaverunt. 
Etenim  apud  inferos  utrum  in  locis  quibusdam  non  fuisset  Abraham, 
non  satis  possumus  definire.  Nondum  enim  Dominus  venerat  ad  infer- 
num,  ut  emeret  inde  omnium  sanctomm  prsecedentium  animas ;  et 
tamen  Abraham  in  requie  ibi  erat.  Et  quidem  dives  cum  torqueretur 
apud  inferos,  cum  videret  Abraham,  levavit  oculos.  Non  eum  posset 
levatis  oculis  videre,  nisi  ille  esset  superius,  ille  inferius.  Et  quid 
ei  respondit  Abraham,  cumdiceret.  Pater  Abraham,  mitteLasarum,&;c.  ? 
(Luke  xvi.  22 — 26.)     Ergo  inter  ista  duo  fortasse  inferna,  quorum  in 



also  were  in  hell,  but  in  a  place  of  great  rest  and  refreshing,  and 
therefore  very  far  off  from  the  miserable  wretched  glutton  that  lay  in 

FuLKE,  9.  Fulke.  We  say  in  our  creed,  that  Christ  "  descended  into 
hell ;"  which  being  an  article  of  our  faith,  must  have  relation  to 
such  benefit  as  we  receive  by  his  descending,  namely,  that 
thereby  we  are  dehvered  from  the  pains  of  hell.  But  that 
he  should  descend  into  limbus  patrum,  to  fetch  out  the 
fathers,  (wliich  before  you  said  were  in  prison,  now  you  say 
in  rest,)  we  neither  say  it  in  our  creed,  neither  doth  it 
pertain  unto  us.  But  Jerome  is  cited  as  a  favourer  of 
your  opinion,  who,  I  confess,  in  some  part  held  as  you  do, 
but  not  altogether.  For  thus  he  wr'iteth.  in  JEpitaph.  Nepot^. 
After  he  hath  given  thanks  to  Clu'ist  for  our  redemption  by 
his  death  :  Quid  autem  miserius  homine,  qui  ceternce  mortis 
terrore  p>rostratus  vivendi  sensum  ad  hoc  tantuni  accepierat 
utperiret,  &c.  "Wliat  was  more  miserable  than  man  before, 
which  being  cast  down  with  terror  of  eternal  death,  received 
sense  of  hving  for  this  end  only,  that  he  might  perish.  For 
'  death  reigned  from  Adam  unto  Moses,  yea,  upon  those  which 
have  not  sinned  after  the  similitude  of  the  transgression  of 
Adam.'  If  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  in  hell,  who  in  the 
Idngdom  of  heaven  ?     If  thy  friends  were  under  the  pun- 

uno  quieverunt  animse  justorum,  in  altero  torquentur  animae  impiorum, 
attendens  quidam  orans  hie,  jam  in  corpore  Christi  positus,  et  orans 
in  voce  Christi,  eruisse  Deum  animam  suam  ab  inferno  inferiore  dixit, 
quia  liberavit  se  a  talibus  peccatis  per  quae  posset  deduci  a^  tormenta 
infemi  inferioris.  Augustin.  Enarrat.  in  Psalmum  Ixxxv.  c  18.  Opera, 
Vol.  IV.  pp.  1303,  1304] 

17  Quis  autem  miserior  homine ;  qui  tetemae  mortis  terrore  prostratus, 
vivendi  sensum  ad  hoc  tantum  acceperat,  ut  periret?  Regnavit  enim 
mors  ab  Adam  usque  ad  Moysen,  etiam  super  eos  qui  non  peccaverunt 
in  similitudinem  prcevaricationis  Adce.  Si  Abraham,  Isaac  et  Jacob  in 
inferno,  quis  in  ccelorum  regno?  Si  amici  tui  sub  poena  ofFendentis 
Adam,  et  qui  non  peccaverant,  alienis  peccatis  tenebantur  obnoxii; 
quid  de  his  credendum  est,  qui  dixerunt  in  cordibus  suis,  non  eM  Deus  ? 
qui  corrupti  et  abominabiles  facti  sunt  in  voluntatibus  suis?  qui  de- 
clinaverunt,  simul  inutiles  facti  sunt ;  non  est  qui  faciat  bonum,  non  est 
usque  ad  unum?  Quod  si  Lazarus  videtur  in  sinu  Abrahse,  locoque 
refrigerii ;  quid  simile  infernus  et  regna  coelorum  ?  Ante  Christum 
Abraham  apud  inferos:  post  Christum  latro  in  paradise.  Et  idcirco 
in  resurrcctione  ejus  multa  dormientium  corpora  surrexerunt,  et  visa 
sunt  in  coelesti  Jerusalem.  Hieron.  Epit.  Ncpot.  Opera,  Vol.  iv.  p.  267.] 


ishment  of  Adam^,  and  they  which  sinned  not  were  held 
guilty  by  other  men's  sins ;  what  is  to  be  thought  of  them 
which  said  in  their  heart,  'there  is  no  God,'  &c.?  And  if 
Lazarus  be  seen  in  the  bosom  of  Abraham  and  in  a  place  of 
rest,  what  like  hath  hell  and  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?  Before 
Christ,  Abraham  in  hell;  after  Christ,  the  thief  in  paradise." 
In  these  words  Jerome  after  liis  rhetorical  manner,  amplify- 
ing the  benefit  of  our  redemption  by  Christ,  doth  rather  touch 
this  error,  than  plainly  express  it.  For  first,  he  maketh 
all  men  miserable  before  Christ,  and  cast  down  with  terror 
of  eternal  death ;  which  is  true,  if  ye  consider  them  with- 
out Christ,  in  wliich  state  are  all  men  since  Christ :  but  of 
all  men  that  Hved  before  the  time  of  Christ's  death,  and 
yet  embraced  their  redemption  by  him,  it  is  not  true.  As 
also,  that  there  are  some  which  have  not  sinned.  But  that  all 
this  is  to  be  understood,  specially  of  the  death  of  their  bodies, 
and  allegorically  of  their  souls,  he  addeth  immediately,  Et 
idcirco  in  resurrectione  ejus  multa  dormientuim  corpora,  &c. 
"And  therefore  at  Ms  resurrection  many  bodies  of  them  that 
slept  arose,  and  were  seen  in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem."  See 
you  not,  how  he  turneth  all  into  an  allegory,  to  set  forth  the 
virtue  of  Christ's  redemption  ?  who  brought  all  his  elect  by 
his  death  from  hell,  and  the  power  of  darkness,  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven.  Furthermore,  you  bid  us  see  Augustine  in 
Ps.  Ixxxv.  13.  Where  in  the  beginning  he  professeth  his 
ignorance  in  discussing  the  question  of  the  nethermost  hell. 
First,  supposing  this  world  in  which  we  live  to  be  infernum 
superius,  and  the  place  whither  the  dead  go  infernum  in- 
ferius,  from  which  God  hath  delivered  us,  sending  thither  his 
Son,  who  to  tliis  infernum  or  "lower"  place  came  by  his  birth,  Nascendo. 

1  ,         ,  .        ,  ,  .    .  .     Moriendo. 

to  that  by  his  death  ;  he  addeth  another  opmion,  Fortassis 
enim  apwd  ipsos  inferos  est  aliqua  pars  inferior,  &c.  "  Per- 
adventure  even  in  hell  itself  there  is  some  part  lower,  in 
which  the  ungodly  which  have  much  sinned  are  delivered. 
For  whether  Abraham  had  been  now  in  certain  places  in 
hell,  we  cannot  sufficiently  define."  And  afterward  when  he 
hath  spoken  of  the  diverse  places  of  Lazarus  and  the  rich 
glutton,  he  concludeth  as  uncertainly  as  he  began :  Ergo  inter 
istafortasse  duo  inferna,  quorum  in  uno,  &c.  "  Therefore  per- 
adventure  between  these  two  hells,  in  one  of  which  the  souls  of 

P  Old  edition,  mirier  thp  puvixlimcni.     Tf  Adam  and — ] 

19 — 2 

292  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

the  righteous  rested,  [in  the  other]  the  souls  of  the  wicked  are 
tormented,  one  attending  prayeth  in  the  person  of  Christ,"  &c. 
Here  you  may  see,  what  an  article  of  beUef  this  was  with 
St  Augustine,  when  he  hath  nothing  to  define,  but  only 
bringeth  his  conjectural  opinions  and  peradventures :  also 
how  he  taketh  infernmn  for  any  lower  place,  insomuch 
that  he  calleth  tliis  world  infernum.  Wherefore  much  more 
may  infernmn  signify  the  "  grave,"  and  be  so  sometimes 

Martin,  Martin.     His  words   be  these  in  effect :   "  If  a  man  will   say  unto 

me,  that  Lazarus  was  seen  in  Abraham's  bosom,  and  a  place  of  refresh- 
ing "  even  before  Christ's  coming ;  true  it  is,  but  what  is  that  in  com- 
parison ?  Quid  simile  in/emus  et  regna  ccelorum  ?  "  Wliat  hath  hell 
and  heaven  like  ?"  As  if  he  should  say,  "  Abraham  indeed,  and  La- 
zarus, and  consequently  many  other,  were  in  place  of  rest,  but  yet 
in  hell,  till  Christ  came,  and  in  such  rest  as  hath  no  comparison  with  the 
Ex'^d  ^'(f^  '^^^^  ^^  heaven."  And  St  Augustine^  disputing  this  matter  sometime, 
Gen.  ad  lit.     and  doubting  whether  Abraham's  bosom  be  called  "hell"  in  the  scrip- 

lib.  12.  c.  33. 

ture,  and  whether  the  name  of  hell  be  taken  at  any  time  in  the  good 
part,  (for  of  Christ's  descending  into  hell,  and  of  a  third  place  where 
the  patriarchs  remained  until  Christ's  coming,  not  heaven,  but  called 

\}  Quanquam  et  illud  me  nondum  invenisse  confiteor,  inferos  appella- 
tos,  ubi  justorum  animse  requiescunt.  Et  Christi  quidem  animam  venisse 
usque  ad  ea  loca  in  quibus  peccatores  cruciantur,  ut  eos  solveret  a  tor- 
mentis,  quos  esse  solvendos  occulta  nobis  sua  justitia  judicabat,  non 
immerito  creditur.  Quomodo  enim  aliter  accipiendura  sit  quod  dictum 
est,  Quern  Deus  suscitavit  ex  mortuis,  solutis  doloribus  inferorum,  quia 
non  poterat  teneri  ah  eis,  non  video,  nisi  ut  quorumdam  dolores  apud 
inferos  eum  solvisse  accipiamus,  ea  potestate  qua  Dominus  est,  cui  omne 
genu  flectitur,  coelestium,  teiTestrium,  et  infernorum ;  per  quam  potes- 
tatem  etiam  illis  doloribus,  quos  solvit,  non  potuit  attineri.  Neque 
enim  Abraham,  vel  ille  pauper  in  sinu  ejus,  hoc  est  in  secreto  quietis 
ejus,  in  doloribus  erat,  inter  quorum  requiem  et  ilia  inferni  tomienta 
legimus  magnum  chaos  firmatum ;  sed  nee  apud  inferos  esse  dicti  sunt. 
Contigit  enim,  inquit,  mori  inopem  ilium,  et  anferri  ab  angelis  in  sinum 
Abrahce :  mortuus  est  autem  et  dives,  et  sepultus  est ;  et  cum  apud  inferos 
in  tormentis  esset,  et  cetera.  Videmus  itaque  inferorum  mentionem 
non  esse  factam  in  requie  pauperis,  sed  in  suppliciis  divitis.  Proinde, 
ut  dixi,  nondum  inveni,  et  adhuc  quaero,  nee  mihi  occurrit  inferos  alicubi 
in  bono  posuisse  scripturam  duntaxat  canonicam:  non  autem  in  bono 
accipiendum  sinum  Abrahae,  et  illam  requiem  quo  ab  angelis  pius 
pauper  ablatus  est,  nescio  utrum  quisquam  possit  audire ;  et  ideo  quo- 
modo eam  apud  inferos  credamus  esse,  non  video.  Augustini  de  Genesi 
ad  litteram.  Lib.  xii.  c.  63,  64.  Opera,  Vol.  viii.  pp.  509,  510.  Vol.  in. 
p.  702.  Edit.  Froben.  1556.'] 


Abraham's  bosom,  he  doubted  not,  but  was  most  assured;)  the  same 

holy  doctor  in  another  place,  as  being  better  resolved,  doubted  not  upon 

these  Avords  of  the  psalm,  "  Thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from  the  in  vs.  ixxxv. 

lower  hell",  to  make  this  one  good  sense  of  this  place,  that  the  lower  ^^" 

hell  is   it  wherein  the  damned   are  tormented,  the  higher  hell  is  that 

wherein  the  souls  of  the  just  rested;  calling  both  places  by  the  name 

of  "help." 

Fulke.  I  have  set  down  his  very  words  indeed,  which  Fulke, 
being  well  weighed,  make  nothing  so  clearly  for  your  fancied  ^^' 
limhus,  as  you  would  have  men  ween.  You  say  Augustine 
doubteth,  whether  Abraham's  bosom  in  the  scripture  be  called 
"hell,"  Ep.  99,  et  de  Gen.  ad  lit.  Lib.  xii.  cap.  33.  But 
there  he  doth  utterly  deny  it,  and  in  Ps.  lxxxv.  as  by  his 
words  cited  before  appeareth,  he  doubteth.  So  that  where 
he  flatly  denieth,  with  you  he  doubteth ;  and  where  he 
doubteth,  with  you  he  is  better  resolved.  Wherefore  this 
matter,  of  Abraham  -and  the  faithful  being  in  hell,  is  no  article 
of  faith ^;  except  you  will  say  that  St  Augustine  was  not  re- 
solved in  the  articles  of  our  faith,  who  touching  the  tliird 
place,  whatsoever  at  divers  times  he  speaketh  doubtingly  in 
his  JJi/jyognosticon,  ho  affirmeth  resolutely,  that  he  findeth 
in  the  scriptures,  that  there  is  none. 

Martin.    And  surely,  of  his  marvellous  humility  and  wisdom,  he  Martin, 
would  have  been  much  more  resolute  herein,  if  he  had  heard  the  opinion  ^^' 
of  St  Jerome,  whom  he  often  consulted  in  such  questions,  and  of  other 
fathers,  who  in  this  pouat  speak  most  plainly,  that  Abraham's  bosom, 
or  the  place  where  the  patriarchs  rested,  was  some  part  of  hell.     Ter- 
tullian.  Lib.  iv.  advers.  Marcion.  saith,  "  I  know  that  the  bosom  of  Loco  citato. 
Abraham  was   no    heavenly  place,  but  only  the  higher  hell,    or  the 
higher  part  of  hell."     Of  which  speech  of  the  fathers  rose  afterward 
that  other  name,  limhus  patrum,  that  is  the  vei-y  brim  or  uppermost 
and  outmost  pai-t  of  hell,  where  the  fathers  of  the  old  testament  rested. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  patriarchs  themselves  were  as  then  in  hell,  though 
they  were  there  in  a  place  of  rest ;  insomuch  that  St  Jerome  saith  again*, 

[^^  Quid  his  ergo  praestiterit  qui  dolores  solvit  inferni,  in  q^iibus 
illi  non  fuerunt,  nondum  intelligo;  praesertim  quia  ne  ipsos  quidem 
inferos  uspiam  scripturarum  in  bono  appellatos  potui  reperire.  Quod 
si  nusquam  in  divinis  auctoritatibus  legitur,  non  utique  sinus  ille 
Abrahffi,  id  est  secretse  cujusdam  quietis  habitatio,  aliqua  pars  inferorum 
esse  credenda.    Augustini  Epistola  clxiv.  c.  7.     Opera,  Vol.  ii.  p.  860.] 

[^  This  subject  is  fully  discussed  by  Bishop  Pearson  on  the  5th 
Article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed.] 

f*  Adde  quod  ante  I'esurrectionem  Christi  notus  tantum  in  Judaea 




Ante  resurrectionem  Christi  notus  in  Judcea  Deus,  et  ipsi  qui  Jioverarit 
eum,  tamen  ad  inferos  trahebantur  :  that  is,  "  Before  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  God  was  known  in  Jury,  and  they  themselves  that  knew 
chris'tus'sit  ^^)  y^t  Were  drawn  unto  hell."  St  Chrysostom  in  that  place  of  Esay, 
Deus, torn. 5.  "J  ^nU  break  the  brasen  gates,  and  bruise  the  iron  bars  in  pieces, 
and  will  open  the  treasures  darkened,  &c.  "  So  he  calleth  hell,"  saith 
he;  "for  although  it  were  hell,  yet  it  held  the  holy  souls,  and  pre- 
cious vessels,  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob '."  Mark  that  he  saith,  "though 
it  were  heU,"  yet  there  were  the  just  men  at  that  time,  tiU  our  Saviour 
Christ  came  to  deliver  them  from  thence. 



Fulke.  As  wise  and  humble  as  he  was,  he  was  not 
ready  to  yield  to  every  opinion  of  Jerome,  as  his  epistles 
written  to  Jerome  do  declare.  Neither  was  Jerome  so  re- 
solute in  this  matter,  whereof  he  speaketh  under  a  cloud 
and  in  an  allegory;  as  it  is  plain,  where  he  saith  the  bodies 
that  were  raised  at  the  resurrection  of  Christ  were  seen 
in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  whereas  it  is  certain  they  were 
seen  only  in  the  earthly  Jerusalem  actually.  But  he  meaneth, 
the  effect  of  Christ's  redemption  was  acknowledged  either 
in  the  cathohc  church,  which  is  Jerusalem  above  in  one 
sense;  or  else  that  they  shall  be  seen  in  the  new  Jerusalem 

erat  Deus ;  in  Israel  magnum  nomen  ejus.  Et  ipsi  qui  noverant  eum, 
tamen  ad  inferos  trahebantur.  Hieronymi  Epitaphium  Nepot.  Opera, 
Vol.  IV.  p.  267. 

Utrum  autem  sinus  ille  Abrahse,  ubi  dives  impius,  cum  in  tor- 
mentis  esset  inferni,  requiescentem  pauperem  vidit,  vel  paradisi  cen- 
sendus  vocabulo,  vel  ad  inferos  iJertinere  existimandus  sit,  non  facile 
dixerim.  De  illo  quippe  divite  legimus  dictum  esse,  Mortuus  est  autem 
et  dives,  et  sepidtus  est  in  inferno;  et,  cum  apud  inferos  in  tormentis 
esset.  In  pauperis  autem  morte  vel  requie  non  sunt  inferi  nominati :  sed, 
Contigit,  inquit,  mori  inopem  ilium,  et  auferri  ab  angelis  in  sinum  Abrahce. 
Deinde  ardenti  diviti  dicit  Abraham,  hiter  nos  et  vos  chaos  magnum  fir- 
matum  est;  tanquam  inter  inferos  sedesque  beatorum.  Non  enim  facUe 
alicubi  scripturarum  inferorum  nomen  positum  invenitur  in  bono. 
Augustini  Epist.  clxxxvii.  c.  8.    Opera,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  1019,  1020.] 

P  Nvv  Se  eTepcos  6  'Heraiay,  rrvXas  x^^'^^^  <xvv&ka.<ja>,  Ka\  fiox^ovs 
aiBrjpoiis  (TvvTpiyjra),  koi  ai/oi'^co  ctol  drjaavpovs  (TKOTeivovs,  dnoKpiKpavs, 
aoparovs  avadei^co  aoi,  rbv  adrjv  ovtco  KaXa>v  Ei  yap  Koi  adrjs  rjv,  dhXa 
y^v^o-s  eKparei  dyias  Koi  (TKevr]  rt'/ita,  rov  ^A^padp.,  rov  'laaaK,  rbv  'laKci/S, 
bio  KoX  drfcravpovs  eKaXeo'e'  crKOTfivovs  6e,  fnelirep  oiiBeTru)  6  Trjs  diKcuo- 
avvrjs  T]Xios  riv  KaraXapyfras  avroBi,  ov8e  tovs  ntpl  dvacrTaaeais  Krjpv^us 
\6yovs.  Chrysost.  contra  Judteos  et  Gentiles  quod  Christus  sit  Deus. 
Opera,  Vol.  i.  p.  564 ;  Vol.  vi.  p.  626,  edit.  SavilL] 


and  blessed  felicity  of  the  godly  at  the  world's  end ;  whereof 
a  testimony  was  given  in  that  sight  of  their  appearing  and 
particular  resurrection  known  at  Jerusalem  on  earth. 

But  you  cite  another  place  out  of  Tertullian,  Lib.  iv.  ad- 
versus  Marcionem,  and  in  the  margin  you  say,  hco  citato ;  but 
I  wot  not  where.  And  these  be  Tertulhan's  words,  if  you 
be  an  honest  man :  "I  know  that  the  bosom  of  Abraham 
was  no  heavenly  place,  but  only  the  higher  hell,  or  the 
higher  part  of  hell."  I  see  you  wUl  be  as  bold  Avith  the 
ancient  doctors'  works,  as  you  are  with  my  poor  writings, 
whom  you  make  to  say  even  what  you  hst.  In  the  last 
section  before  you  said,  St  Augustine,  Epistol.  99,  et  de  Gen. 
ad  lit.  Lib.  xii.  cap.  33.  doubted  whether  Abraham's  bosom 
were  called  "hell."  Quod  si  nusqiiam,  &c.  "If  it  be  never 
read  in  the  holy  scriptures  {scilicet  that  hell  is  taken  in 
the  good  part)  verily  that  bosom  of  Abraham,  that  is  the 
habitation  of  a  certain  secret  rest,  is  not  to  be  behoved  to 
be  any  part  of  hell."  And  again,  by  reason  of  the  in- 
finite chaos,  Satis  ut  opinor  appareat,  "  It  may  appear,  as 
I  think,  sufficiently,  that  the  bosom  of  that  so  great  feli- 
city is  not  a  certain  part,  and  as  it  were  a  member  of 
hell.""*  In  the  other  place  he  speaketh  to  the  same  effect, 
and  upon  the  same  ground,  that  he  never  findeth  in  the 
scriptures  "heU"  taken  in  good  part;  and  cap.  34,  where  he 
proveth  that  paradise  is  heaven,  he  saith :  Quanto  magis  ergo, 
"How  much  more  then  may  that  bosom  of  Abraham  after 
this  life  be  called  paradise  ?"  This  saith  Augustine,  and  much 
more  to  this  purpose ;  wherein  I  thought  to  have  forborne 
you,  but  that  you  come  upon  us  still  with  new  forgeries. 

TertuUian  in  the  book  by  you  quoted,  p.  274  of  Frob. 
printed  1550,  thus  writeth :  Sed  Marcion  aliorsum  cogit, 
&c.^    "  But  Marcion  driveth  it  another  way,  so  forsooth,  that 

[^  Sed  Marcion  aliorsum  cogit:  scilicet  utramque  mercedem  Creatoris, 
sive  tormenti  sive  refrigerii,  apud  inferos  detenninat  eis  positam  qui 
legi  et  prophetis  obedierint;  Christi  vero  et  Dei  sui  coelestem  definit 
sinum  et  portum.  Respondebimus,  et  hac  ipsa  scriptura  revincente 
oculos  ejus,  quae  ab  inferis  discernit  Abrahae  sinum  pauperis.  Aliud 
enim  inferi,  ut  puto,  aliud  quoque  sinus.  Nam  et  magnum  ait  inter- 
cedere  regiones  istas  i:)rofundum,  et  trausitum  utrinque  proliibere.  Sed 
nee  allevasset  dives  oculos,  et  quidem  de  longinquo,  nisi  in  superiora, 
et  de  altitudinis  longinquo,  per  immensam  illam  distantiam  sublimitatis 

296  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

he  determineth  both  the  rewards  of  the  Creator,  either  of 
torment  or  of  refreshing,  to  be  laid  up  for  them  in  hell, 
which  have  obeyed  the  law  and  the  prophets.  But  of  Christ, 
and  his  God,  he  defineth  an  heavenly  bosom  and  heaven. 
We  will  answer,  and  even  by  this  self-same  scripture,  con- 
vincing his  blindness,  which  agamst  hell  discerneth  tliis  Abra- 
ham's bosom  to  the  poor  man.  For  one  thmg  is  hell,  (as 
I  thmk,)  and  Abraham's  bosom  another  thing.  For  a  great 
depth,  he  saith,  is  between  those  regions,  and  that  doth  let 
the  passage  to  and  fro.  But  neither  should  the  rich  man 
have  lifted  up  his  eyes,  and  that  tnily  from  afar  oif,  but  into 
higher  places,  and  that  of  an  exceeding  height,  by  that  in- 
finite distance  of  height  and  depth.  Whereof  it  appeareth 
to  every  wise  man,  that  hath  ever  heard  of  the  Elysian  fields, 
that  there  is  some  local  determination,  which  is  called  Abra- 
ham's bosom,  to  receive  the  souls  of  his  sons,  even  of  the 
gentiles;  he  being  the  father  of  many  nations,  to  be  accounted 
of  Abraham's  family,  and  of  the  same  faith,  by  wliich  Abra- 
ham behoved  God  under  no  yoke  of  the  law,  nor  in  the 
sign  of  circumcision.  That  region  therefore  I  call  the  bosom 
of  Abraham,  and  if  not  heavenly,  yet  higher  than  hell,  which 
shall  give  rest  in  the  mean  season  to  the  souls  of  the  just, 
until  the  consummation  of  things  do  finish  the  resurrection  of 
all  with  the  fulness  of  reward."  This  is  as  much  as  I  can 
find  in  Tertulhan  touching  Abraham's  bosom,  which  is  clean 
contrary  to  that  you  affirm  him  to  speak.  For  by  this  say- 
ing it  is  manifest,  that  your  opinion  is  Marcion's  heresy. 
Secondly,  that  Abraham's  bosom  is  not  hell,  but  higher  by 
an  infinite  distance,  although  not  in  full  perfection  of  heavenly 
glory.  Thirdly,  that  it  is  not  limbus  patrum,  but  the  re- 
ceptacle of  all  the  just  souls  to  the  end  of  the  world.     Ter- 

et  profunditatis.  Unde  apparet  sapienti  cuique,  qui  aliquando  elysios 
audierit,  esse  aliquara  localem  determinationem,  quae  sinus  dicta  sit 
Abrahae,  ad  recipiendas  animas  filiorum  ejus,  etiam  ex  nationibus;  patris 
scilicet  multarum  nationum  in  Abrahs  censum  deputandarum  et  ex  eadem 
fide,  qua  et  Abraham  Deo  credidit,  nullo  sub  jugo  legis,  nee  in  signo 
circumcisionis.  Earn  itaque  regionem,  sinum  dico  Abrahae,  etsi  non 
coelestem,  sublimiorem  tamen  inferis,  interim  refrigerium  praebituram 
animabus  justorum,  donee  coiisummatio  rerum  resurrectionem  omnium 
plenitudine  mercedis  expungat.  Tertull.  Adv.  Marcion,  Lib.  iv.  Edit. 
Rigult.  p.  559.] 


tullian's  authority  therefore  doth  you  small  pleasure,  and  less 
honesty,  unless  you  did  cite  liim  more  truly.  But  I  am 
unwise  to  look  for  plain  dealing  and  smcerity  at  your  hands. 

Well,  your  limbus  patrum,  the  very  brim,  or  uppermost, 
or  outmost  part  of  hell,  wherein  all  the  patriarchs  should  rest, 
we  have  now  found  from  whence  it  came,  even  from  yom' 
old  acquaintance,  the  mouse  of  Pontus,  Marcion  the  abomi- 
nable heretic.  The  other  saying  of  Jerome,  but  that  the 
opinion  of  the  fathers  in  hell  had  by  that  time  taken  some 
strength,  might  be  understood  of  the  mortahty  whereunto 
they  were  subject,  and  never  should  have  been  raised,  but  by 
the  resurrection  of  Christ;  as  it  seemeth  by  that  which  he 
opposeth  of  all  nations,  since  the  passion  and  resurrection  of 
Christ,  acknowledged  to  speak  like  pliilosophers  of  the  im- 
mortality of  the  soul,  and  rejoicing  in  the  resm*rection  of  the 
dead,  as  the  fathers  mourned  at  their  death.  Chrysostom's 
place  is  more  apparent  for  your  error,  although  he  also 
may  be  understood  to  speak  allegorically  of  the  effect  of 
Christ's  death  and  resurrection,  by  which  all  the  patriai'chs 
were  delivered  from  death,  and  heU  was  spoiled ;  not  that 
they  were  in  prison  there,  but  that  the  justice  of  God  had 
condemned  them  thither,  if  Christ's  death  had  not  redeemed 
them  :  but  I  wiU  not  stand  to  clear  Chrysostom  of  tliis  error, 
which  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  have  found  that  Marcion  the 
old  heretic  was  the  first  author  thereof,  by  Tertulhan's  con- 
fession ;  howsoever  it  came  to  pass,  that  many  good  men  after- 
ward, deceived  by  the  words  ct^»/<,'  and  infernus,  did  hold  it. 

Martin.     Therefore  did  Jacob  say,  "  I  will  go  down  to  my  son  unto  Martin, 
hell."    And  again  he  saith  :  "  If  any  misfortune  happen  to  (Benjamin)  q"^  yiXyiu. 
by  the  way,  you  shall  bruig  my  grey  head  with  sorrow  unto  hell," 
which  is  repeated  again  twice  in  the  chap.  xliv. ;  by  which  phrase  the  holy 
scripture  will  signify,  not  only  death,  but  also  the  descending  at  that 
time  of  all  sorts  of  souls  into  hell,  both  good  and  bad.    And  there-  i  Kings  u '. 

F'  Kat  oil  iiT]  a6<aoia-r)s  avrov,  otl  av^p  (ro0oj  el  crii,  kol  yvaxrr) 
a  7roL7]aeLs  avra,  Koi  Kara^eis  ttjp  noXiav  avrov  iv  aluari  els  dSov. 
1  Kings  ii.  9.  "Tu  noli  pati  eum  esse  innoxium.  Vir  autem  sapiens  es, 
ut  scias  quije  facies  ei,  deducesque  canos  ejus  cum  sanguine  ab  inferos," 
Vulg.  "Deal  with  him  therefore  according  to  thy  wisdom,  and  bring  not 
his  hoar  head  down  to  the  grave  in  peace,"  Edit.  1562.  "  But  thou  shalt 
not  count  him  as  unguilty :  for  thou  art  a  man  of  wisdom,  and  knowest 
what  thou  oughtest  to  do  unto  him,  his  hoar  head  thou  shalt  bring 

'298  A     DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cil. 

fore  it  is  spoken  of  all  sorts  in  the  holy  scripture,  both  of  good  and 

of  bad.     For  all  went  then  into  hell ;  but  some  into  a  place  there  of 

rest,  others  into  other  places  there  of  torments.    And  therefore  St  Jerome 

In  cap.  13.     saith,  speaking  of  hell,  according  to  the  old  testament :  "  Hell  is  a  place 

Psai.  ixxxv.   wherein  souls  are  included  ;  either  in  rest,  or  iu  pains,  according  to  the 


quality  of  theu*  deserts^." 

FuLKE,  Fulke.     Jacob  said    he  would  be  joined  to  his  son  bj 

^"'  death,  as  in  the  other  text  you  bring  it  is  more  manifest  than 

the  sun  at  noon  days.  For  Jacob,  speaking  of  his  grey  head, 
must  needs  mean  of  his  body,  and  therefore  of  the  grave, 
and  not  of  hell.  So  in  the  3  Eeg.  2,  which  you  quote, 
David  chargeth  Salomon,  that  he  suffereth  not  the  grey  head 
of  Joab  to  go  down  to  the  grave  in  peace,  and  that  he  shall 
cause  the  hoar  head  of  Shemei  to  go  down  to  the  grave  with 
blood;  which  by  no  means  can  be  understood  of  his  soul  going 
to  hell,  which  goeth  not  with  blood;  although  it  is  plain 
enough  by  the  word  "  hoar  head,"  that  he  meaneth  his  body 
in  age,  or  liis  old  body.  And  this  text  Pagnine,  in  his  die- 
to  the  grave  with  blood,"  Edit.  1584.  "  Therefore  thou  shalt  cause 
his  hoar  head  to  go  down  to  the  grave  with  blood,"  Geneva,  1560. 
"  But  his  hoar  head  bring  thou  down  to  the  grave  with  blood,"  Autho- 
rised version. 

Kai  KarejBrjcrav  avTo\,  Kcii  oaa  eari  avrcov  ^covra  et?  aSov.  Numb. 
xvi.  33.  "  Descenderuntque  vivi  in  infernum,"  Vulg.  "  They,  and 
all  that  appertained  to  them,  went  down  alive  into  the  pit,"  Authorised 

[}  Et  descenderunt  ipsi,  et  omnia  qucECumque  sunt  eis,  viventes  ad 
■inferos.  Notandum  secundum  locum  terrenum  dictos  esse  inferos,  hoc 
est  in  inferioribus  terree  partibus.  Varie  quippe  in  scripturis  et  sub 
intellectu  multiplici,  sicut  rerum  de  quibus  agitur  sensus  exigit,  nomen 
ponitur  inferorum,  et  maxime  in  mortuis  hoc  accijii  solet.  Sed  quoniam 
istos  viventes  dictum  est  ad  inferos  descendisse,  et  ipsa  narratione  quid 
factum  fuerit  satis  apparet;  manifestum  est,  ut  dixi,  inferiores  partes 
teiTfe  inferorum  vocabulo  nuncupatas,  in  comparatione  hujus  superioris 
terrae  in  cujus  facie  vivitur;  sicut  in  comparatione  coeli  superioris,  ubi 
sanctorum  demoratio  est  angelorum,  peccantes  angelos  in  hujus  aeris 
detrusos  caliginem  scriptura  dicit  tanquam  carceribus  inferi  puniendos 
reservari.  Augustini  Quaestiones  in  Numeros,  c.  xxix.  Opera,  Vol.  iii. 
pp.  838,  839.  Edit.  Bened.  Paris.  1836.] 

P  Inter  mortem  autem  et  inferos  hoc  interest :  mors  est,  qua  anima 
separatur  a  corpore ;  infernus,  locus  in  quo  animtc  recluduntur,  sive 
in  refrigcrio,  sive  in  pa>nis,  pro  qualitate  meritorum.  Comment.  Hiero- 
nymi  in  Osee.  c.  xiii.     Opera,  Vol.  in.  p.  1329.] 


tionary,  thought  necessary  to  be  understood  of  the  grave, 
although  he  make  the  word  sheol  indifferent  to  signify  "hell," 
and  the  "grave."  That  all  went  to  hell,  some  to  rest,  and  some 
to  torments,  it  was  first  devised  by  Marcion  the  heretic.  But 
St  Jerome  is  once  again  cited  in  Osea,  cap.  xiii.  where  he 
saith,  "  that  hell  is  a  place  wherein  souls  are  included,"  &c. : 
by  wliich  you  see  that  he  speaketh  not  of  limhus,  wherein 
souls  were  included  before  Christ,  but  of  such  a  place  wherein 
they  are  now  included ;  taking  the  word  in/emus  generally 
for  any  place  that  receiveth  the  souls  of  the  departed,  as  he 
saith  most  plainly  himself  in  the  same  place :  Quicquid 
igitur  separat  fratres,  infernus  est  appellandus.  "Whatso- 
ever doth  separate  brethren,  is  to  be  called  hell."  Augustine 
is  quoted  to  multiply  a  lie,  and  for  nothing  else,  as  I  have 
shewed  before. 

Martin.    And  in  this  sense  it  is  also  often  said  in  the  holy  scrip-  Martin, 
tures,  that  such  and  such  were  gathered,  or  laid  to  their  fathers,  though  ^'^• 
they  were  buried  in  divers  places,  and  died  not  in  the  same  state  of  The  scrip- 
salvation,  or  damnation.     In  that  sense,  Samuel  being  raised  up  to  speak  another  Lii, 
to  Saul,  said,  "  To-morrow  thou  and  thy  sons  shall  be  with  me  :"  that  the'dlmned°^ 
is,  dead,  and  in  hell,  though  not  in  the  same  place  or  state  there:  in 
this  sense  all  such  places  of  the  holy  scripture  as  have  the  word  "infei-i," 
or  "infernus,"  correspondent  both  to  the  Greek  and  Hebrew,  ought  to 
be,  and  may  be  most  conveniently  translated  by  the  word  "hell."    As 
when  it  is  said,  "  Thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from  the  lower  hell,"  Ab  inferno 
Psal.  Ixxxviii.  13,  that  is,  as  St  Augustine  expoundeth  it,  "  Thou  hast 
preserved  me  from  mortal  sins,  that  would  have  brought  me  into  the 
lower  hell,  which  is  for  the  damned."     Which  place  of  holy  scripture, 
and  the  like,  when  they  translate  "  grave,"  see  how  miserably  it  soundeth  : 
"  Thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from  the  lowest  grave."    Which  they  Bib.  1579. 
would  never  say  for  very  shame,  but  that  they  are  afraid  to  say  in 
any  place,  be  the  holy  scriptures  never  so  plain,  that  any  soul  was 
delivered  or  returned  from  hell,  lest  thereof  it  might  follow  by  and  by, 
that  the  patriarchs,  and  our  Saviour  Christ,  were  in  such  a  hell, 

Fulke.  That  which  is  spoken  indifferently  of  the  elect  Fulke, 
and  reprobate,  must  needs  bo  understood  of  that  which  is  ^'^' 
common  to  both,  that  is,  corporal  death.  How  can  it  be 
verified  of  their  souls,  that  they  were  laid  to  the  fathers, 
when  between  the  godly  and  the  wicked  there  is  an  infinite 
distance?  but  the  earth,  the  grave,  or  pit,  is  a  common 
receptacle  of  all  dead  bodies.  That  Samuel,  which  being 
raised   up  spake  to  Saul,  might  ti-uly  say  of  his  soul,  though 

300  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [cH. 

not  of  all  his  sons,  that  he  should  be  with  him  in  hell,  (for 
it  was  the  spirit  of  Satan,  and  not  of  Samuel,  although  coun- 
terfeiting Samuel,)  he  might  speak  of  the  death  of  Saul  and 
his  sons.  As  for  that  verse  of  the  eighty-fifth  psalm  \  where- 
upon you  do  falsely  so  often  allege  St  Augustine's  resolution, 
what  absurdity  hath  it,  to  translate  it,  "from  the  lowest  grave," 
or  "from  the  bottom  of  the  grave"  ?  whereby  David  meaneth 
extreme  danger  of  death  that  he  was  in  by  the  mahce  of  his 
persecuting  enemies,  Saul  and  his  accomplices.  But  we  "are 
afraid  to  say  in  any  place,  that  any  'soul  was  delivered  and 
returned  from  hell.'  "  We  say  that  the  souls  of  all  the  faith- 
ful are  delivered  from  hell ;  but  of  any  which  after  death  is 
condemned  to  hell,  we  acknowledge  no  return.  And  these 
words  are  spoken  by  David  while  he  lived,  and  praised  God 
for  his  deliverance;  which  might  be  not  only  from  the  "grave," 
but  also  from  "hell,"  saving  that  he  here  speaketh  of  his  pre- 
servation from  death. 

IMAnTiN,  Martin.    And  that  this  is  their  fear,  it  is  evident,  because  that  in 

14-  all  other  places,   where  it  is  plain  that  the  holy  scriptures  speak  of 

the  hell  of  the  damned,  from  whence  there  is  no  return,  they  trans- 
late there  the  veiy  same  word  "  hell,"  and  not  "  grave."    As  for  example, 
Prov.  XV.  24.  "  The  way  of  life  is  on  high  to  the  prudent,  to  avoid  from  hell  beneath^." 
Lo,  here  that  is  translated  "  hell  beneath,"  wliich  before  was  translated 
"  the  lowest  grave."    And  again,  "  Hell  and  destruction  are  before  the 
Lord  :  how  much  more  the  hearts  of  the  sons  of  men  1"    But  when  in 
the  holy  scriptures  there  is  mention  of  delivery  of  a  soul  from  hell. 
Bib.  1579.      then  thus  they  translate  :  "  God  shall  deliver  my  soul  from  the  power 
inferi.  of  the  grave,  for  he  will  receive  me."    Can  you  tell  what  they  would 

say  ?  doth  God  deliver  them  from  the  grave,  or  from  temporal  death, 

[1  on  TO  eXfus  (Tov  fieya  eV  efie,  kol  ippvcro)  ti)v  \j/v^i']v  fiov  i^ 
ahov  KarcoTaTov.  Psal,  Lxxxv.  13.  "Quia  misericordia  tua  magna  est 
super  me ;  et  eruisti  animam  meam  ex  inferno  inferiori,"  Vulg.  "  For 
great  is  thy  mercy  toward  me ;  and  thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from 
the  nethermost  hell,"  Bishops'  bible,  1584;  Cranmer,  1562.  "For 
great  is  thy  mercy  toward  me ;  for  thou  hast  delivered  my  soul  from 
the  lowest  grave,"  Geneva  version,  1560,  1579.] 

^  '08o\  C^TjS  diavotjixara  <tvv€tov,  Iva  iKKkivas  eK  tov  aSov  (rcodrj. 
Prov.  XV.  24.  "  Semita  vitse  super  eruditum,  ut  declinet  de  inferno  no- 
vissimo,"  Vulg.  "  The  way  of  life  is  above  to  the  wise,  that  he  may 
depart  from  hell  beneath,"  Version  1611.  "The  way  of  life  is  on  high 
to  the  prudent,  to  avoid  from  hell  beneath,"  Geneva,  1560.  "  The 
way  of  life  leadeth  unto  heaven,  that  a  man  should  beware  of  hell 


whom  he  receiveth  to  his  mercy  1  or  hath  the  grave  any  power  over 
the  soul?  Again,  when  they  say,  "Wliat  man  liveth  and  shall  not 
see  death?  shall  he  deliver  his  soul  from  the  hand  of  the  grave?" 

FtilJce.     I  have  shewed  before  divers  thnes,  that  although  Fulke, 
the  Hebrew  word  sheol  do  properly  signify  a  receptacle  of  ■^'*" 
the  bodies  after  death,  yet  when  mention  is  of  the  wicked,  by 
consequence  it  may  signify  "hell ;"  as  the  day  signifieth  light, 
the  night  darkness,  fire  heat,  peace  signifieth  prosperity,  and 
an  hundi^ed   such  like   speeches.      But  where   you  say  that 
Proverbs  xv.  24,  that  is  translated  "hell  beneath,"  which  before 
was  translated  the  "  lowest  grave,"  Psalm  Ixxxv.  13,  you  say 
untruly ;  for  although  in  both  places  there  is  the  word  sheol, 
yet  in  that  psahn  there  is  tachtijah,  in  the  Proverbs  mattah,  ''t-  : - 
for  which  if  it  were  translated  "the  grave,"  that  declineth,  or  is     ritSO 
downward,   it  were  no  inconvenience.      In  the  other  texts 
you  trifle  upon  the  word  "soul;"  whereas  the  Hebrew  word  sig- 
nifieth not  the  reasonable  soul,  which  is  separable  from  the 
body,  but  the  life,  or  the  whole  person  of  man,  which  may 
rightly  be  said  to  be  dehvered  from  the  hand  or  power  of 
the  grave,  as  the  verse  48^  doth  plainly  declare,  when  in  the 
latter  part  is  repeated  the    sense  of  the   former,  as  it  is  in 
many  places  of  the  Psalms. 

Martin.     If  they  take  "  gi'ave"  properly,  where  man's  body  is  buried,  Martin, 
it  is  not  true  either  that  every  soul,  yea,  or  e\erj  body  is  buried  in     ' 

beneath,"  Cranmer,  1562.  "  The  way  of  life  is  on  high  to  the  wise, 
that  a  man  should  beware  of  hell  beneath,"    Bishops'  bible,  1584. 

'Ek  x^i-po^  a8ov  pvcrofiai,  Koi  eK  davarov  XvTpuxrofiai  avrovs'  ttov 
■fj  VLKT)  aov,  davare ;  ttov  to  Kevrpov  (tov,  oSt;  ;  "  De  manu  mortis  liberabo 
eos,  de  morte  redimam  eos;  ero  mors  tua,  o  mors,  morsus  tuus  ero, 
inferne,"  Vulg.  "  I  will  ransom  them  from  the  power  of  the  grave ; 
I  will  redeem  them  from  death :  O  death,  I  will  be  thy  plagues ;  O 
grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruction,"    Version  1611.     Hosea  xiii.  14. 

Hov  (TOV,  davare,  to  KiVTpov ;  ttov  aov,  aSr],  to  vIkos  ;  "  Ubi  est, 
mors,  victoria  tua  ?  ubi  est,  mors,  stimulus  tuus  ?"  Vulg.  "  Oh  death, 
where  is  thy  sting  ?  oh  grave,  where  is  thy  victory  ?"  Authorised  ver- 
sion, 1611.     1  Cor.  XV.  55.] 

P  pv(T€Tai  TTjv  ■^v)(i)v  avTov  €K  x^'poy  0.80V  ;  Psal.  Ixxxvii.  48.  "Eruet 
animam  suam  de  manu  inferi  ?"  Vulg.  Ixxxix.  48.  "  And  shall  he 
deliver  his  soul  from  the  hand  of  hell?"  Bishops'  bible,  1584 ;  Cranmer, 
1562.  "Shall  he  deliver  his  soul  from  the  hand  of  the  grave?"  Geneva, 
1560 ;  Authorised  version.] 

302  A    DEFENCE    OF    THE    ENGLISH  [CH. 

a  grave.  But  if  in  all  such  places  they  will  say  they  mean  nothing 
else  but  to  signify  death,  and  that  to  go  down  into  the  grave,  and  to 
die,  is  all  one ;  we  ask  them,  why  they  follow  not  the  words  of  the 
holy  scripture  to  signify  the  same  thing,  which  call  it  going  down  to 
"  hell,"  not  going  down  to  the  "  grave"  ?  Here  they  must  needs  open 
the  mystery  of  antichrist  working  in  their  translations,  and  say,  that 
so  they  should  make  hell  a  common  place  to  all  that  departed  in  the 
old  testament;  which  they  will  not,  no,  not  in  the  most  important  places 
of  our  belief  concerning  our  Saviour  Christ's  descending  into  hell,  and 
triumphing  over  the  same.  Yea,  therefore  of  purpose  they  will  not, 
only  for  to  defeat  that  part  of  our  christian  creed. 

FuLKE,  FulTce.     We  cannot  always  take  the  word  "grave"  pro- 

■'^'  perly,  when  the  scripture  useth  it  figuratively.     But  if  we 

say,  to  go  down  to  the  grave  and  to  die  is  all  one,  you  ask 
us  why  we  follow  not  the  words  of  the  holy  scripture.  I 
answer.  We  do,  for  the  scripture  calleth  it  "grave,"  and  not 
"hell."  Where  then  is  your  vain  clattering  of  the  mystery  of 
antichrist,  that  we  must  open  ?  Because  we  will  not  acknow- 
ledge that  heretical  common-place,  invented  by  Marcion  the 
heretic,  we  purpose  to  defeat  the  article  of  Christ's  descend- 
ing into  hell.  A  monstrous  slander !  when  we  do  openly 
confess  it,  and  his  triumphing  over  hell  in  more  triumphant 
manner  than  you  determine  it.  For  if  he  descended  into 
that  hell  only,  in  which  were  the  souls  of  the  feitliful,  which 
was  a  place  of  rest,  of  comfort,  of  joy,  and  felicity ;  what 
triumph  was  it  to  overcome  such  an  hell?  which,  if  you 
take  away  the  hateful  name  of  "  hell,"  by  your  own  descrip- 
tion will  prove  rather  an  heaven  than  an  hell.  But  we 
believe  that  he  triumphed  over  the  hell  of  the  damned, 
and  over  all  the  power  of  darkness,  which  he  subdued  by 
the  virtue  of  his  obechence  and  sacrifice,  so  that  it  should 
never  be  able  to  claim  or  hold  any  of  his  elect,  whom  he 
had  redeemed. 

Martin,  Martin.    As  when  the  prophet  first,  Osea  xiii.,  and  afterward  the 

apostle,  1  Cor.  xv.  in  the  Greek,  say  thus ^  :  Ero  mors  tua,  o  mors,  morsvK 

n  'K.aTtnoQrj  6  Odvaros  fls  vikos.  ttov  (tov,  ddvare,  to  Ktvrpov ;  tvov 
(rov,  a8r],  to  vIkos  ;  to  Se  KevTpov  tov  OavaTov  rj  dfiapTia.  1  Cor.  xv. 
54, 65,  56.  "Absorptaest  mors  in  victoria:  ubi  est,  mors,  victoria  tua? 
ubi  est,  mors,  stimulus  tuus  ?  Stimulus  autem  mortis  peccatum  est," 
Vulg.     "  Death  is  consumed  into  victory.     Death,  where  is  thy  sting  ? 



tuus  ero,  infcrne.     Ubi  est,  mors,  stimulus  tuns?  ubi  est,  infefi-ne,  victoria      ^'y^'^ 
tua  ?    "  O  death,  I  will  be  thy  death :    I   will  be  thy  sting,  O  hell.  ^  ^,j       ' 
Where  is,  O  death,  thy  sting  ?  where  is,  O  hell,  thy  victory  V    They 
translate  in  both  places,  "  O  grave,"  instead  of  "  O  hell."    What  else  ^iij- 1573. 
can  be  their  meaning  hereby,  but  to  draw  the  reader  from  the  com- 
mon sense  of  our  Saviour  Christ's  descending  into  hell,  and  conquering 
the  same,  and  bringing  out  the  fathers  and  just  men  triumphantly  from 
thence  into  heaven?  which  sense  hath  always  been  the  common  sense 
of  the  catholic  church  and    holy  doctors,  specially  upon  this  place  of  ^ee  s.  Hier. 

''  5     1  .;       X  i.  Comment,  in 

the  prophet.    And  what  a  kind  of  speech  is  this,  and  out  of  all  tune,  i3.  Osee^, 
to  make  our  Saviour  Christ  say,  "  O  grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruction"  ? 
as  though  he  had  triumphed  over  the  grave,  and  not  over  hell ;  or  over 
the  grave,  that  is,  over  death ;  and  so  the  prophet  should  say  "  death" 
twice,  and  "hell"  not  at  all. 

Fulke.  St  Jerome,  whom  you  quote  in  the  margm,  to  Fulke, 
prove  that  all  the  catholic  doctors  understood  this  text  of^^- 
Osee,  of  Christ's  descending  into  hell,  and  thereby  reprove 
our  translation,  which  for  "hell"  saith  "grave,"  after  he  hath 
repeated  the  words  of  the  apostle,  1  Cor.  xv.  upon  this  text, 
thus  he  concludeth  :  Itaque  quod  ille  in  resu7'rectionem 
interpretatus  est  Domini,  nos  aliter  interpretari  nee  jyos- 
sumus  nee  audemus.  "Therefore  that  which  the  apostle  hath 
interpreted  of  our  Lord's  resurrection,  we  neither  can  nor 
dare  interpret  otherwise."  You  see  therefore  by  Jerome's 
judgment,  that  in  this  text,  which  is  proper  of  Christ's  re- 
surrection, it  is  more  proper  to  use  the  word  of  "grave,"  than 
of  "hell."  How  vainly  the  same  Jerome  interpreteth  the  last 
words  of  this  chapter,  of  spoiling  the  treasure  of  every  vessel 
that  is  desirable,  of  Christ's  deUvering  out  of  hell  the  most 
precious  vessels  of  the  saints,  &c.  I  am  not  ignorant ;  but  we 
speak  of  translation  of  the  14th  verse,  wliich  being  un- 
derstood of  Christ's  resurrection,  it  argueth,  that  the  grave 
is   spoken  of,   rather   than   hell.     As   for   the   repetition  of 

Hell,  where  is  thy  victory  ?  The  sting  of  death  is  sin,"  Tyndale, 
1534.  "  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory ;  death,  where  is  thy  sting  ? 
Hell,  where  is  thy  victory?  The  sting  of  death  is  sin,"  Cranmer,  1539. 
Bishops'  bible,  1584,  with  an  interjection.  "Death  is  swallowed  up  into 
victory.  Death,  where  is  thy  sting  ?  gi'ave,  where  is  thy  victory  ?  the 
sting  of  death  is  sin,"  Geneva,  1577.  Authorised  Version,  1611,  with  an 
interjection  after.  "  Death  is  swallowed  up  in  victory.  Death,  where  is 
thy  victory !  Death,  where  is  thy  sting,  and  the  sting  of  death  is  sin," 
Rheims,  1582.] 

P  Comment.  Hieronymi  in  Osee,  c.  xiii.     Opera,  Vol.  in.  p.  1330.] 




one  thing  twice  for  vehomency  and  certainty's  sake,  [it]  is  no 
inconvenient  tiling,  but  commonly  used  in  the  scriptures. 




Mdrtbi.  Wliy,  my  masters,  you  that  are  so  wonderful  precise  trans- 
lators, admit  that  our  Saviour  Christ  descended  not  into  hell  beneath, 
as  you  say,  yet  1  think  you  will  grant  that  he  triumphed  over  hell, 
and  was  conqueror  of  the  same.  Why  then  did  it  not  please  you  to 
suffer  the  prophet  to  say  so  at  the  least,  rather  than  that  he  had  con- 
quest only  of  "death"  and  the  "  grave"  ?  You  abuse  your  ignorant  reader 
very  impudently,  and  your  own  selves  very  damnably,  not  only  in  this, 
but  in  that  you  make  "  grave,"  and  "  death,"  all  one ;  and  so,  where 
tlie  holy  scripture  often  joineth  together  "death"  and  "hell,"  as  things 
different  and  distinct,  you  make  them  speak  but  one  thing  twice,  idly 
and  supei-fluously. 

Fulke.  For  our  faith  of  Clu'ist's  triumphing  over  hell, 
I  have  spoken  already  sufficiently ;  but  of  the  prophet's 
meaning,  beside  the  words  themselves,  the  apostle  is  best 
expounder,  who  referreth  it  to  the  resurrection,  and  his 
victory  over  death,  which  he  hath  gained  not  for  liimself 
alone,  but  for  all  his  elect.  Where  you  say  we  make  "grave" 
and  "death"  all  one,  it  is  false.  We  know  they  differ;  but 
that  one  may  be  signified  by  the  other,  without  any  idle  or 
superfluous  repetition,  in  one  verse,  I  refer  me  to  a  whole 
hmidred  of  examples,  that  may  be  brought  out  of  the  Psalms, 
the  Prophets,  and  the  Proverbs,  where  words  of  the  same, 
like,  or  near  signification  are  twice  together  repeated,  to 
note  the  same  matter ;  which  none  but  a  blasphemous  dog 
will  say  to  be  done  idly  or  superfluously. 


Hierom.  in 
Osee.  c.  13.  i 

Martin.  But  will  you  know  that  you  should  not  confound  them, 
but  that  mors  and  infernus,  which  are  the  words  of  the  holy  scripture, 
in  all  tongues  are  distinct ;  hear  what  St  Jerome  saith :  or  if  you  will 
not  hear,  because  you  are  of  them  which  "have  stopped  their  ears," 
let  the  indifferent  christian  reader  hearken  to  this  holy  doctor  and  great 
interpreter  of  the  holy  scriptures,  according  to  his  singular  knowledge 
in  all  the  learned  tongues.  Upon  the  aforesaid  place  of  the  prophet, 
after  he  had  spoken  of  our  Saviour  Christ's  descending  into  hell,  and 
overcoming  of  death,  he  addeth  :   "  Between  death  a